27 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1923–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zumpano v. Quinngreen2 sentences2017However, "[e]quitable estoppel defeats an otherwise valid statute of limitations defense only where the party invoking the doctrine has reasonably relied on the deceptive conduct alleged to have given rise to the estoppel." K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp. , 132 AD3d 584 , 589 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added), citing Zumpano , 6 NY3d at 674. "[T]he question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is not generally a question to be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss." ACA Fin. 2017However, "[e]quitable estoppel defeats an otherwise valid statute of limitations defense only where the party invoking the doctrine has reasonably relied on the deceptive conduct alleged to have given rise to the estoppel." K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp. , 132 AD3d 584 , 589 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added), citing Zumpano , 6 NY3d at 674 . "[T]he question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is not generally a question to be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss." ACA Fin. | 2 | 2 |
BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., Inc.green2 sentences2014It stated that landlord was estopped from arguing otherwise, because “[a]ny other conclusion would render illusory [tenant]’s subsequently bargained for benefit of a lease extension, if after actually giving up his right to occupy the premises and operate his business for ten months, plaintiff retained an unconditional and unfettered right to terminate his lease at any time on 30 days’ notice.” The party invoking a defense of equitable estoppel must establish: “(1) Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or, at least, which is calculated to convey the 2014It stated that landlord was estopped from arguing otherwise, because “[a]ny other conclusion would render illusory [tenant]’s subsequently bargained for benefit of a lease extension, if after actually giving up his right to occupy the premises and operate his business for ten months, plaintiff retained an unconditional and unfettered right to terminate his lease at any time on 30 days’ notice.” The party invoking a defense of equitable estoppel must establish: “(1) Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or, at least, which is calculated to convey the | 2 | 2 |
Nappy v. Nappygreen2 sentences2017“The burden then shifts to the party to be estopped to demonstrate the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Nappy v Nappy, 100 AD3d 843, 845 [2012]). 2016The burden then shifts to the party to be estopped to demonstrate “the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Nappy v Nappy, 100 AD3d at 845 ; see Abrahams v Commonwealth Land Tit. | 1 | 2 |
Hoffer v. Bank of America, N.A.green1 sentence2017“The party invoking the doctrine must show that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is determinative in the present action” (Hoffer v Bank of Am., N.A., 136 AD3d 750, 752 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Mahler v. Campagnagreen1 sentence2015Once the party invoking the doctrine discharges his or her burden in that regard, the party to be estopped bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Capellupo v Nassau Health Care Corp., 97 AD3d 619, 621-622 [2012] [citations omitted]; see Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Capellupo v. Nassau Health Care Corp.green1 sentence2015Once the party invoking the doctrine discharges his or her burden in that regard, the party to be estopped bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Capellupo v Nassau Health Care Corp., 97 AD3d 619, 621-622 [2012] [citations omitted]; see Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d 1009, 1011 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Education v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLPgreen2 sentences2010The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first rejected the approach taken by New Jersey, concluding that “the best course . . . for Pennsylvania common law [was] to continue to recognize the availability of the in pari delicto defense . . . , via the necessary imputation, in the negligent-auditor context” where the plaintiffs culpability was equal to or greater than the defendant’s (AHERF, 989 A2d at 335). 2010The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first rejected the approach taken by New Jersey, concluding that "the best course ... for Pennsylvania common law [was] to continue to recognize the availability of the in pari delicto defense ..., via the necessary imputation, in the negligent-auditor context" where the plaintiff's culpability was equal to or greater than the defendant's ( AHERF, 989 A2d at 335). | 1 | 1 |
Feldman v. Metropolitan Life Insurancegreen1 sentence2007Co., 259 App Div 123, 125 [1940]). | 1 | 1 |
Sorrentino v. Mierzwagreen1 sentence2007In addition to lapse of time, laches is founded upon the intervention of circumstances during the lapsed time that works to the disadvantage of the party invoking the doctrine, making it unjust to allow the other party to proceed after causing the delay (Sorrentino v Mierzwa, 25 NY2d 59, 63 [1969], citing Feldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Bekins Record Storage Co.green2 sentences2003See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84 , 550 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1989); Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 329 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (1984); People v. Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d 368, 373 , 461 N.Y.S.2d 267, 269 (1983). 2003See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84 , 550 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1989); Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 329 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (1984); People v. Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d 368, 373 , 461 N.Y.S.2d 267, 269 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84 , 550 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1989); Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 329 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (1984); People v. Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d 368, 373 , 461 N.Y.S.2d 267, 269 (1983). 2003See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84 , 550 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1989); Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 329 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (1984); People v. Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d 368, 373 , 461 N.Y.S.2d 267, 269 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Osoriogreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84 , 550 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1989); Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 329 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (1984); People v. Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d 368, 373 , 461 N.Y.S.2d 267, 269 (1983). 2003See, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84 , 550 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1989); Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., 62 N.Y.2d 324, 329 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (1984); People v. Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d 368, 373 , 461 N.Y.S.2d 267, 269 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
People v. . Webstergreen1 sentence1976This is what the plaintiff’s counsel undertook to do when he recalled his client in rebuttal” (Potter v Browne, 197 NY 288, 291-292 ; see, also People v Webster, 139 NY 73, 85 ; People v Brooks, 131 NY 321, 325 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
757 3rd Avenue Associates, LLC v. Patel
green
2 sentences2024Assoc., LLC v. Patel , 117 AD3d 451 , 453 [1st Dep't 2014] citing BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., Inc., 1985 NY App. Div. LEXIS 52087 *6 [1st Dep't 1985].) The defense of unclean hands requires a demonstration that Petitioner's alleged violations of Respondent's rights rose to the level of "immoral" or "unconscionable" conduct ( 214 Lafayette House LLC v. Akasa Holdings LLC, 209 N.Y.S. 3d 335 , 340 [1st Dep't 2024]). 2024Assoc., LLC v. Patel , 117 AD3d 451 , 453 [1st Dep't 2014] citing BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., Inc., 1985 NY App. Div. LEXIS 52087 *6 [1st Dep't 1985].) The defense of unclean hands requires a demonstration that Petitioner's alleged violations of Respondent's rights rose to the level of "immoral" or "unconscionable" conduct ( 214 Lafayette House LLC v. Akasa Holdings LLC, 209 N.Y.S. 3d 335 , 340 [1st Dep't 2024]). | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Rivera v. County of Nassau
green
2 sentences2012In order to prevail on a cause of action seeking to recover damages for false arrest or false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (see Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d 1032 [2011]). 2012In order to prevail on a cause of action seeking to recover damages for false arrest or false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (see Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d 1032 [2011]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Buechel v. Bain
green
2 sentences2012The party invoking the doctrine must show that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is determinative in the present action (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 304 ). 2012The party invoking the doctrine must show that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is determinative in the present action (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 304 ). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
National Distillers & Chemical Corp. v. Seyopp Corp.
green
2 sentences1991Corp. v Seyopp Corp., 17 NY2d 12 ; Cohn & Berk v RothmanGoodman Mgt. 1986Corp. v Seyopp Corp., 17 NY2d 12 ; 55 NY Jur 2d, Equity, §§ 117-132). | 2 | 1986–1991 |
RTR Properties, LLC v. Sagastume
green
1 sentence2023Here, since Nationstar failed to show that its predecessor in interest lacked actual knowledge of the March 2007 judgment lien in 2009 when the predecessor in interest provided funds to the Furtermans which were used to satisfy a then-existing first priority lien, the referee did not err in determining that Nationstar failed to establish the applicability of the doctrine of equitable subrogation ( see RTR Props., LLC v Sagastume , 145 AD3d at 699 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sudit v. Labin
green
1 sentence2023The party invoking the doctrine has the burden of establishing that it lacked actual notice of the prior mortgage lien ( see Sudit v Labin , 148 AD3d 1073, 1076 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Glaster
green
2 sentences2017However, "[e]quitable estoppel defeats an otherwise valid statute of limitations defense only where the party invoking the doctrine has reasonably relied on the deceptive conduct alleged to have given rise to the estoppel." K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp. , 132 AD3d 584 , 589 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added), citing Zumpano , 6 NY3d at 674. "[T]he question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is not generally a question to be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss." ACA Fin. 2017However, "[e]quitable estoppel defeats an otherwise valid statute of limitations defense only where the party invoking the doctrine has reasonably relied on the deceptive conduct alleged to have given rise to the estoppel." K-Bay Plaza, LLC v Kmart Corp. , 132 AD3d 584 , 589 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added), citing Zumpano , 6 NY3d at 674 . "[T]he question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is not generally a question to be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss." ACA Fin. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Britt v. International Bus Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009Britt v International Bus Servs., 255 AD2d 143 [1998]), but rather a petitioner in a probate proceeding. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Newman v. United States
green
1 sentence1997A party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel must show that the critical issue in the instant action was necessarily decided in the prior action and that the party against whom the estoppel is sought has been afforded a full opportunity to contest the issue (see, Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 NY2d 271, 276 , cert denied 488 US 1005 ; Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456; Ryan v New York Tel. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Allied Chemical v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
green
1 sentence1997A party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel must show that the critical issue in the instant action was necessarily decided in the prior action and that the party against whom the estoppel is sought has been afforded a full opportunity to contest the issue (see, Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 NY2d 271, 276 , cert denied 488 US 1005 ; Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 , 456; Ryan v New York Tel. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Brown v. Lockwood
green
1 sentence1987As a rule, the unclean hands’ doctrine is available only when the party invoking the doctrine has been injured in the transaction by the person against whom she is invoking the doctrine (see, Frymer v Bell, 99 AD2d 91, 96 ; Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d 721, 729 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Frymer v. Bell
green
1 sentence1987As a rule, the unclean hands’ doctrine is available only when the party invoking the doctrine has been injured in the transaction by the person against whom she is invoking the doctrine (see, Frymer v Bell, 99 AD2d 91, 96 ; Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d 721, 729 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Muka v. Heffron
neutral
1 sentence1986While true that escrow agents have a fiduciary obligation to take whatever steps are necessary (including court action) to protect any party with a beneficial interest in the escrow fund (see, e.g., Oppenheim v Simon, 57 AD2d 1006 ; Helman v Dixon, 71 Misc 2d 1057 ), in this particular case the plaintiff is barred from seeking the equitable remedy of recovering moneys obtained through unjust enrichment by the doctrine of unclean hands, i.e., one may not obtain equitable relief where he himself has engaged in inequitable or unconscionable conduct connected with the matter in litigation, and whe | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Helman v. Dixon
green
1 sentence1986While true that escrow agents have a fiduciary obligation to take whatever steps are necessary (including court action) to protect any party with a beneficial interest in the escrow fund (see, e.g., Oppenheim v Simon, 57 AD2d 1006 ; Helman v Dixon, 71 Misc 2d 1057 ), in this particular case the plaintiff is barred from seeking the equitable remedy of recovering moneys obtained through unjust enrichment by the doctrine of unclean hands, i.e., one may not obtain equitable relief where he himself has engaged in inequitable or unconscionable conduct connected with the matter in litigation, and whe | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi
neutral
1 sentence1983This doctrine is applicable when the immoral or unconscionable conduct complained of is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party invoking the doctrine was injured by such conduct (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 116 Misc 2d 590, 598-599 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Potter v. . Browne
neutral
1 sentence1976This is what the plaintiff’s counsel undertook to do when he recalled his client in rebuttal” (Potter v Browne, 197 NY 288, 291-292 ; see, also People v Webster, 139 NY 73, 85 ; People v Brooks, 131 NY 321, 325 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. . Brooks
green
1 sentence1976This is what the plaintiff’s counsel undertook to do when he recalled his client in rebuttal” (Potter v Browne, 197 NY 288, 291-292 ; see, also People v Webster, 139 NY 73, 85 ; People v Brooks, 131 NY 321, 325 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Butler v. . Mutual Life Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Pittsburgh-Westmoreland Coal Co. v. . Kerr green | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.