judicial estoppel doctrine in New York

2024Co. , 203 F2d 510, 513). ( Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp. , 215 AD2d at 436 .) Therefore, this Court rejects Defendant's arguments premised on the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

2024Co. , 203 F2d 510, 513). ( Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp. , 215 AD2d at 436 .) Therefore, this Court rejects Defendant's arguments premised on the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

2017The judicial estoppel doctrine “precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed” (Dhamoon v 230 Park S. Apts., Inc., 48 AD3d 103, 112 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5 [3d Dept 1999], affd 94 NY2d 87 [1999]).

2015Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, “if a party assumes a position in one legal proceeding and prevails in maintaining that position, that party will not be permitted to assume a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party’s interests have changed” (Kilcer v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86 AD3d 682, 683 [2011]; see Barker v Amorini, 121 AD3d 823, 824 [2014]; Mikkelson v Kessler, 50 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2008]; Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 87 [1999]).

2025The court agrees with plaintiffs that, having obtained dismissal of the Directors lawsuit on the ground that the Directors lawsuit was sufficiently identical to this action to warrant dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), the Co-op’s directors1 would be judicially estopped from arguing that the Directors lawsuit is not identical to this action (see Gale P. Elston, P.C. v Dubois, 18 AD3d 301, 303 [1st Dept 2005] [the doctrine of judicial estoppel “precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contra

2014As plaintiffs did not prevail on their contractual indemnification claim, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply (see Kvest LLC v Cohen, 86 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2011]; Gale P. Elston, P.C. v Dubois, 18 AD3d 301, 303 [1st Dept 2005]).

2025Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a "party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Temlyak , 221 AD3d 750, 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Barker v Amorini , 121 AD3d 823, 824 ).

2025Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a "party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Temlyak , 221 AD3d 750, 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Barker v Amorini , 121 AD3d 823, 824 ).

2022As the majority notes, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, "where a party assumes a certain position in a legal [action or] proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, [it] may not thereafter, simply because [its] interests have changed, assume a contrary position" ( Shapiro v Butler , 273 AD2d 657, 659 [2000] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see 12 New St., LLC v National Wine & Spirits, Inc. , 196 AD3d 883, 884 [2021]; D & L Holdings v Goldman Co. , 287 AD2d 65, 71 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 611 [2002]).

2021In order for the doctrine of judicial estoppel to apply, there must be a showing that the party taking the inconsistent position had benefitted from the determination in the prior action or proceeding based upon the position it advanced there ( see Matter of Bianchi v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 5 AD3d 303, 304 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 601 [2004]; D & L Holdings v Goldman Co. , 287 AD2d 65, 71-72 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 611 [2002]).

2026"Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she [*2]took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed" ( Bihn v Connelly , 162 AD3d 626 , 627; see Archer v Beach Car Serv., Inc. , 180 AD3d 857, 861 ).

2026"Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, 'a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed'" ( Joseph v Singh , 206 AD3d at 982-983, quoting Archer v Beach Car Serv., Inc. , 180 AD3d 857, 861 ; see Crespo v Crespo , 309 AD2d 727, 728 ). "[A]n essential element of a cause of action for a divorce is the existence of a valid marriage" ( Suwei Chuang v Ya Chen Hsieh , 92 AD3d 939, 940 ).

2023Co. v Salvo (Sup Ct, NY County, Oct. 8, 2021, index No. 652442/2020) does not foreclose plaintiff from arguing lack of prejudice to defendant under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Wesco order neither [*2]addressed nor adopted plaintiff's arguments that she was prejudiced by Wesco's defense ( see Kalikow 78/79 Co. v State of New York , 174 AD2d 7, 11 [1st Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 1040 [1992]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

2023Co. v Salvo (Sup Ct, NY County, Oct. 8, 2021, index No. 652442/2020) does not foreclose plaintiff from arguing lack of prejudice to defendant under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the Wesco order neither [*2]addressed nor adopted plaintiff's arguments that she was prejudiced by Wesco's defense ( see Kalikow 78/79 Co. v State of New York , 174 AD2d 7, 11 [1st Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 1040 [1992]).

2014The doctrine of judicial estoppel “ ‘precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed’ ” (Jones Lang Wootton USA v LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 243 AD2d 168, 176 [1st Dept 1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 962 [1998], quoting Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d 435, 436 [2d Dept 1995]).

2014The doctrine of judicial estoppel “ ‘precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed’ ” (Jones Lang Wootton USA v LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 243 AD2d 168, 176 [1st Dept 1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 962 [1998], quoting Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d 435, 436 [2d Dept 1995]).

2018Because defendant did not prevail on its claim in Supreme Court, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply ( id. ; Kvest LLC v Cohen , 86 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2011]).

2018Because defendant did not prevail on its claim in Supreme Court, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply ( id. ; Kvest LLC v Cohen , 86 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2011]).

2017The doctrine of judicial estoppel, or the doctrine of inconsistent positions, can preclude a party from inequitably assuming inconsistent positions within the same proceeding (see Matter of Hartsdale Fire Dist. v Eastland Constr., Inc., 65 AD3d 1345, 1346, 1348 [2d Dept 2009]).

2015The Supreme Court denied the motion. “ ‘Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding’ ” (Matter of Hartsdale Fire Dist. v Eastland Constr., Inc., 65 AD3d 1345, 1346 [2009], quoting Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 87 [1999]).

2020The doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, precludes a party who assumed a position in one legal proceeding and prevailed in maintaining that position from assuming a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party's interests have changed ( see Davis v Citibank, N.A. , 116 AD3d 819, 820 ; Kilcer v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. , 86 AD3d 682, 683 ).

2015Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, “if a party assumes a position in one legal proceeding and prevails in maintaining that position, that party will not be permitted to assume a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party’s interests have changed” (Kilcer v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86 AD3d 682, 683 [2011]; see Barker v Amorini, 121 AD3d 823, 824 [2014]; Mikkelson v Kessler, 50 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2008]; Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 87 [1999]).

2016Maintenance Servs., Inc., 49 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2008]).

2016Maintenance Servs., Inc., 49 AD3d 1335, 1336 [2008]).

2025Contrary to the objectant's contention, the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not bar the co-executors from asserting during the accounting proceedings that the objectant was not the residuary beneficiary ( see Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC , 181 AD3d 909, 911-912 ).

2025Contrary to the objectant's contention, the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not bar the co-executors from asserting during the accounting proceedings that the objectant was not the residuary beneficiary ( see Ghatani v AGH Realty, LLC , 181 AD3d 909, 911-912 ).

2016The doctrine of judicial estoppel, which, in a bankruptcy context, bars a party from pursuing claims not listed in a bankruptcy proceeding that resulted in the party's discharge ( see Cafferty v Thompson , 223 AD2d 99 [1996]), does not apply in the absence of a final determination in the bankruptcy proceeding endorsing the party's inconsistent position concerning its assets ( see Koch v National Basketball Assn. , 245 AD2d 230 [1997]; Manhattan Ave.

2016Moreover, as plaintiff has not obtained any discharge against her creditors, she has not lost standing to bring this action (see Koch v National Basketball Assn., 245 AD2d 230, 230-231 [1st Dept 1997] [“(t)he doctrine of judicial estoppel, which, in a bankruptcy context, bars a party from pursuing claims not listed in a bankruptcy proceeding that resulted in the party’s discharge, does not apply in the absence of a final determination in the bankruptcy proceeding endorsing the party’s inconsistent position concerning his or her assets” (citation omitted)]; see also B.N.

2025The doctrine of judicial estoppel "prevents a party who assumed a certain position in a prior proceeding and secured a ruling in his or her favor from advancing a contrary position in another action, simply because his or her interests have changed" ( Becerril v City of NY Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene , 110 AD3d 517, 519 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 905 [2014]; see Herman v 36 Gramercy Park Realty Assoc., LLC , 165 AD3d 405, 406 [2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 1045 [2019]).

2025The doctrine of judicial estoppel "prevents a party who assumed a certain position in a prior proceeding and secured a ruling in his or her favor from advancing a contrary position in another action, simply because his or her interests have changed" (<i>Becerril v City of NY Dept. of Health &amp; Mental Hygiene</i>, 110 AD3d 517 , 519 [2013], <i>lv denied </i> 23 NY3d 905 [2014]; <i>see Herman v 36 Gramercy Park Realty Assoc., LLC</i>, 165 AD3d 405 , 406 [2018], <i>lv denied </i> 33 NY3d 1045 [2019]). </p> <p>As a licensee, respondent was only entitled to a 10-day notice to quit (RPAPL 713 [7]

2024On the issue of judicial estoppel in paternity cases, the Appellate Division Second Department has noted that: "[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, 'a party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'" ( Paese v Paese , 144 AD3d 770 , 771—772 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C. , 28 NY3d 1 , 17 [2016]).

2019In the prior appeal, this Court expressly stated that the father had standing to proceed as Isabella's parent under Domestic Relations Law § 70 based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel ( see Paese v Paese , 144 AD3d at 772 ).

2007Corp., 101 AD2d 591, 593 [1984]).

2003Corp., 101 AD2d 591, 594 [1984]).

2017The judicial estoppel doctrine “precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed” (Dhamoon v 230 Park S. Apts., Inc., 48 AD3d 103, 112 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5 [3d Dept 1999], affd 94 NY2d 87 [1999]).

2015Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, “if a party assumes a position in one legal proceeding and prevails in maintaining that position, that party will not be permitted to assume a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party’s interests have changed” (Kilcer v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86 AD3d 682, 683 [2011]; see Barker v Amorini, 121 AD3d 823, 824 [2014]; Mikkelson v Kessler, 50 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2008]; Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5 [1999], affd 94 NY2d 87 [1999]).

2024On the issue of judicial estoppel in paternity cases, the Appellate Division Second Department has noted that: "[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, 'a party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'" ( Paese v Paese , 144 AD3d 770 , 771—772 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C. , 28 NY3d 1 , 17 [2016]).

2017“Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, ‘a party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed’ ” (Paese v Paese, 144 AD3d 770, 771-772 [2016], quoting Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 NY3d 1, 17 [2016]).

2021The defendants' reliance upon Festinger v Edrich ( 32 AD3d 412 ) is misplaced, as the holding there is based more on the doctrine of judicial estoppel than on the doctrine of unclean hands.

2019Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed ( see Bihn v Connelly , 162 AD3d 626 , 627; Festinger v Edrich , 32 AD3d 412, 413 ; McCaffrey v Schaefer , 251 AD2d 300, 301 ; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp. , 215 AD2d 435, 436 ).

2012The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that, “ ‘[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he [or she] may not thereafter, simply because his [or her] interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him [or her]’ ” (New Hampshire v Maine, 532 US 742, 749 [2001], reh denied 533 US 968 [2001] [emphasis added], quoting Davis v Wakelee, 156 US 680, 689 [1895]; see Popadyn v Clark Constr. & Prop.

2012The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that, “ ‘[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he [or she] may not thereafter, simply because his [or her] interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him [or her]’ ” (New Hampshire v Maine, 532 US 742, 749 , reh denied 533 US 968 [emphasis added], quoting Davis v Wakelee, 156 US 680, 689 ; see Popadyn v Clark Constr. & Prop.

2006In any event, the lenient sentence which he received constituted such a benefit for purposes of the doctrine of judicial estoppel (see generally Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine v Zion, 168 AD2d 373 [1990]; Kimco of N.Y. v Devon, supra), and the application of the doctrine also was essential to avoid a fraud upon the court and a mockery of the truth-seeking function (see e.g.

2002The doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as the “doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions!,] * * * precludes a party from framing his pleadings in a manner inconsistent with a position taken in a prior judicial proceeding” (Kimco of N.Y. v Devon, 163 AD2d 573, 574 ; see Houghton v Thomas, 220 App Div 415, 423 , affd 248 NY 523 ; Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine v Zion, 168 AD2d 373, 374 , lv dismissed 78 NY2d 908 , rearg denied 78 NY2d 1008 ; see also Piedra v Vanover, 174 AD2d 191, 197 ; Greven v Muir, 128 AD2d 753, 754 ).

2002The doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as the “doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions!,] * * * precludes a party from framing his pleadings in a manner inconsistent with a position taken in a prior judicial proceeding” (Kimco of N.Y. v Devon, 163 AD2d 573, 574 ; see Houghton v Thomas, 220 App Div 415, 423 , affd 248 NY 523 ; Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine v Zion, 168 AD2d 373, 374 , lv dismissed 78 NY2d 908 , rearg denied 78 NY2d 1008 ; see also Piedra v Vanover, 174 AD2d 191, 197 ; Greven v Muir, 128 AD2d 753, 754 ).

1999The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter assume a contrary position if it will result in prejudice to the adverse party (see, Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95, 99-100 ; Houghton v Thomas, 220 App Div 415, 423 , affd 248 NY 523 ; Chemical Bank v Aetna Ins.

2002The doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as the “doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions!,] * * * precludes a party from framing his pleadings in a manner inconsistent with a position taken in a prior judicial proceeding” (Kimco of N.Y. v Devon, 163 AD2d 573, 574 ; see Houghton v Thomas, 220 App Div 415, 423 , affd 248 NY 523 ; Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine v Zion, 168 AD2d 373, 374 , lv dismissed 78 NY2d 908 , rearg denied 78 NY2d 1008 ; see also Piedra v Vanover, 174 AD2d 191, 197 ; Greven v Muir, 128 AD2d 753, 754 ).

1999The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter assume a contrary position if it will result in prejudice to the adverse party (see, Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95, 99-100 ; Houghton v Thomas, 220 App Div 415, 423 , affd 248 NY 523 ; Chemical Bank v Aetna Ins.

1999(Inter-Power of N. Y. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 208 AD2d 1073, 1075 [3d Dept 1994] [“(T)he doctrine of judicial estoppel * * * ‘prevent(s) a party from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding ór a prior proceeding’ ”], citing Shepardson v Town of Schodack, 195 AD2d 630, 632 [3d Dept 1993], affd 83 NY2d 894 [1994].) Referees to Compute RPAPL 1321 authorizes the court to direct a Referee to compute the amount due the plaintiff in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

1998Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from “ ‘inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding or in a prior proceeding’ ” (Inter-Power of N. Y. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 208 AD2d 1073, 1075 , quoting Shepardson v Town of Schodack, 195 AD2d 630, 632 , affd 83 NY2d 894 ).