Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. v. Hootnickgreen2 sentences2020We reject defendant's further contention that decedent should have been estopped from contesting the valuation of his shares. "[T]he doctrine of equitable estoppel is to be invoked sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances" ( Mahuson v Ventraq, Inc. , 118 AD3d 1267, 1269 [4th Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and " 'is ordinarily a question of fact for trial' " ( Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. v Hootnick , 42 AD3d 890, 893 [4th Dept 2007]). 2012Co., 269 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2000]), and “ £[e]stoppel is ordinarily a question of fact for trial’ ” (Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. v Hootnick, 42 AD3d 890, 893 [2007]). | 3 | 4 |
Townley v. Emerson Electric Co.green2 sentences2014Co., 269 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2000]), and “waiver ‘should not be lightly presumed’ and must be based on ‘a clear manifestation of intent’ to relinquish a contractual protection” (Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96, 104 [2006]). 2012Co., 269 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2000]), and “ £[e]stoppel is ordinarily a question of fact for trial’ ” (Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. v Hootnick, 42 AD3d 890, 893 [2007]). | 3 | 4 |
Ceely v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.green2 sentences2023Corp. , 162 AD2d 492, 493 ; see Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC , 206 AD3d 703 , 703-704). 2020Corp. , 162 AD2d 492, 493 ; see Khela v City of New York , 91 AD3d 912, 914 ). "[W]here a governmental subdivision acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently . . . [it] should be estopped from asserting a right or defense which it otherwise could have raised. | 2 | 4 |
Sanchez v. Jericho Sch. Dist.green2 sentences2024Dist. , 180 AD3d 828, 830 ). 2023Auth. , 143 AD3d 774, 776 ). "'The doctrine of equitable estoppel is to be invoked sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances'" ( Sanchez v Jericho S.D. , 180 AD3d 828, 830 , quoting Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 4 |
Katechis v. Batistagreen2 sentences2022Dist. , 180 AD3d 828, 830 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'[E]stoppel against a [municipality] will lie only when the [municipality's] [*2]conduct was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage a party from serving a timely notice of claim and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party'" ( Khela v City of New York , 91 AD3d 912, 914 , quoting Mohl v Town of Riverhead , 62 AD3d 969, 970 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2020Corp. , 162 AD2d 492, 493 ; see Khela v City of New York , 91 AD3d 912, 914 ). "[W]here a governmental subdivision acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently . . . [it] should be estopped from asserting a right or defense which it otherwise could have raised. | 1 | 2 |
Mohl v. Town of Riverheadgreen1 sentence2022Dist. , 180 AD3d 828, 830 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'[E]stoppel against a [municipality] will lie only when the [municipality's] [*2]conduct was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage a party from serving a timely notice of claim and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party'" ( Khela v City of New York , 91 AD3d 912, 914 , quoting Mohl v Town of Riverhead , 62 AD3d 969, 970 [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
MAHUSON, RICHARD W. v. VENTRAQ, INC.green1 sentence2020We reject defendant's further contention that decedent should have been estopped from contesting the valuation of his shares. "[T]he doctrine of equitable estoppel is to be invoked sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances" ( Mahuson v Ventraq, Inc. , 118 AD3d 1267, 1269 [4th Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and " 'is ordinarily a question of fact for trial' " ( Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. v Hootnick , 42 AD3d 890, 893 [4th Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospitalgreen1 sentence2020Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant raised the issue of estoppel on its motion and met its initial burden on that issue, we conclude that decedent raised a triable issue of fact ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v. Tocqueville Asset Management, L.P.green1 sentence2014Co., 269 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2000]), and “waiver ‘should not be lightly presumed’ and must be based on ‘a clear manifestation of intent’ to relinquish a contractual protection” (Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96, 104 [2006]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gross v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
2 sentences1996Corp., 122 AD2d 793, 794 ), and since HHC was under no duty to raise plaintiffs’ failure to properly serve a notice of claim on HHC as an affirmative defense or otherwise bring to plaintiffs’ attention that the City of New York was not a proper party defendant (Kroin v City of New York, supra). 1992Corp., 122 AD2d 793, 794 ). | 3 | 1990–1996 |
Konner v. New York City Transit Authority
green
1 sentence2023Auth. , 143 AD3d 774, 776 ). "'The doctrine of equitable estoppel is to be invoked sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances'" ( Sanchez v Jericho S.D. , 180 AD3d 828, 830 , quoting Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Thomson v. . Poor
green
1 sentence1937In Thomson v. Poor ( 147 N. Y. 402, at p. 409 ) the court has stated: “ We know of no principle of law which will permit a party to a contract who is entitled to demand the performance by the other party of some act within a specified time and who has consented to a postponement of the performance to a time subsequent to that fixed by the contract, and where the other party has acted upon such consent and in reliance thereon has permitted the contract time to pass without performance, to subsequently recall such consent and treat the non-performance within the original time as a breach of the | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.