Besse v. Besse, 229 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Besse v. Besse, 229 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of O'Neill v. New York State Tax Appeals Trib.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Accordingly, as "the elements required for the imposition of an estoppel simply are not present" here, the Tribunal properly determined that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply ( Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y. , 229 AD2d 723, 725 [3d Dept 1996]; see Matter of Ryan v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 133 AD3d at 930-931 ; Matter of Winners Garage, Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y. , 89 AD3d at 1169 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Salh v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
No such unusual circumstances have been revealed, nor have the elements of estoppel been shown (see Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 229 AD2d 723, 725 [1996]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Salh v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
No such unusual circumstances have been revealed, nor have the elements of estoppel been shown (see Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 229 AD2d 723, 725 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Winners Garage, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Additionally, in order to impose an estoppel upon a party, three elements must be established: (1) conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) intention that such conduct will be acted upon by the other party; and (3) knowledge of the real facts” (Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 229 AD2d 723, 725 [1996] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Livingston County Support Collection Unit v. Chichester
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
That was error, inasmuch as respondent did not establish the elements necessary for estoppel to apply (see Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 229 AD2d 723, 725 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Word of Life Ministries v. Nassau County
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2002 · confidence medium
While the court need not address petitioner’s additional argument that the respondents are estopped from denying the tax exemption on these properties because they have granted them in the past and the applications at issue are simply renewal forms, the court nonetheless notes that “absent an unusual factual situation, the doctrine of estoppel may not be invoked against a governmental agency engaged in the exercise of its governmental functions * * * Indeed, estoppel traditionally is applied in taxation cases ‘only when it is necessary to prevent manifest injustice’” (Matter of Rashb…
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Washington Sq. Hotel LLC v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Nor do we find any merit in Washington Square’s equitable estoppel argument. “[T]he doctrine of estoppel does not apply in tax cases unless unusual circumstances support a finding of manifest injustice” (Matter of Ryan v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 133 AD3d 929, 930 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 229 AD2d 723, 725 [1996]; Matter of Manhattan Cable Tel. v New York State Tax Commn., 137 AD2d 925, 926 [1988], lv denied and appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 808 , 839 [1988]).
discussed Cited "see" Caldor Corp. v. S Plaza Associates, L.P. (In Re Caldor, Inc.)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rashbaum v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of State of New York, 229 A.D.2d 723, 725 , 645 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1996) (citing Matter of Hayden v. S & W Meat & Poultry, 221 A.D.2d 823, 824-25 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 226 (1995); Matter of Walls v. Levin, 150 A.D.2d 873, 874 , 540 N.Y.S.2d 623 (1989); Airco Alloys Div. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 A.D.2d 68, 81-82 , 430 N.Y.S.2d 179 (1980)).
discussed Cited "see" AGL Welding Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation & Finance
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
There being no facts to support a finding of "manifest injustice” (Matter of Moog, Inc. v Tully, 105 AD2d 982, 983 ; see, Matter of Rashbaum v Tax Appeals Tribunal, 229 AD2d 723, 725 ), the doctriné of estoppel should not be applied against the Department.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Deborah Besse
v.
Jeffrey L. Besse
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 18, 1996.
229 A.D.2d 723
III.
Published
Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), entered October 31, 1994, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for sole custody of the parties’ minor children.

Petitioner and respondent were married in 1978 and have three minor children. The parties physically separated in May 1993, and in March 1994 petitioner, with whom the children reside, commenced this proceeding seeking sole custody. Following a hearing in October 1994, Family Court granted petitioner’s application and this appeal by respondent followed.

Respondent, as so limited by his brief, contends only that Family Court erred, in failing to award the parties joint legal custody of the minor children. As the record before us supports Family Court’s finding that communication between petitioner and respondent has deteriorated to the point that joint custody is no longer viable, we cannot say that Family Court’s decision to award petitioner sole custody was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Family Court’s order should be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.