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.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
6D Farm Corp. v. Carrgreen1 sentence2015The allegations in the complaint, which must be accepted as true for the purposes of this motion (see Bill Kolb, Jr., Subaru, Inc. v LJ Rabinowitz, CPA, 117 AD3d 978 , 979 [2014]; 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903, 905 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815, 816 [2008]; Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913, 914 [2008]), along with the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit, wherein he stated that Panos made certain misrepresentations and false assurances to him after the subject surgery and that those misrepresentations and assurances prevented him fro | 1 | 1 |
Giannetto v. Kneegreen1 sentence2015Francis, LLC, 128 AD3d 885 [2015]; Giannetto v Knee, 82 AD3d 1043, 1045-1046 [2011]; Owen v Mackinnon, 6 AD3d 684, 686 [2004]; cf. Saretto v Panos, 120 AD3d 786 [2014]; Plain v Vassar Bros. | 1 | 1 |
Owen v. Mackinnongreen1 sentence2015Francis, LLC, 128 AD3d 885 [2015]; Giannetto v Knee, 82 AD3d 1043, 1045-1046 [2011]; Owen v Mackinnon, 6 AD3d 684, 686 [2004]; cf. Saretto v Panos, 120 AD3d 786 [2014]; Plain v Vassar Bros. | 1 | 1 |
Sabadie v. Burkegreen1 sentence2015The allegations in the complaint, which must be accepted as true for the purposes of this motion (see Bill Kolb, Jr., Subaru, Inc. v LJ Rabinowitz, CPA, 117 AD3d 978 , 979 [2014]; 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903, 905 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815, 816 [2008]; Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913, 914 [2008]), along with the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit, wherein he stated that Panos made certain misrepresentations and false assurances to him after the subject surgery and that those misrepresentations and assurances prevented him fro | 1 | 1 |
Island ADC, Inc. v. Baldassano Architectural Groupgreen1 sentence2015The allegations in the complaint, which must be accepted as true for the purposes of this motion (see Bill Kolb, Jr., Subaru, Inc. v LJ Rabinowitz, CPA, 117 AD3d 978 , 979 [2014]; 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903, 905 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815, 816 [2008]; Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913, 914 [2008]), along with the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit, wherein he stated that Panos made certain misrepresentations and false assurances to him after the subject surgery and that those misrepresentations and assurances prevented him fro | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Louise Wise Services, Inc.green1 sentence2011Moreover, the statute of limitations had already expired by the date of Ravikumar’s affidavit, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot assert that Ravikumar’s affidavit induced him to refrain from timely filing suit against Aziz and WMC (see Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 492 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burgosgreen1 sentence2008Corp., 227 AD2d 127, 128 [1996]) or a ground for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against HHC (see Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. City of Syracusegreen1 sentence2006There is no basis in this record to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the Village (see Reed v City of Syracuse, 309 AD2d 1195,1197 [2003]; Novak & Co., L.T. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 217 AD2d 575 [1995]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kolb v. Rabinowitz
green
1 sentence2015The allegations in the complaint, which must be accepted as true for the purposes of this motion (see Bill Kolb, Jr., Subaru, Inc. v LJ Rabinowitz, CPA, 117 AD3d 978 , 979 [2014]; 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903, 905 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815, 816 [2008]; Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913, 914 [2008]), along with the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s affidavit, wherein he stated that Panos made certain misrepresentations and false assurances to him after the subject surgery and that those misrepresentations and assurances prevented him fro | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rabinovich v. Shevchenko
green
1 sentence2015Francis, LLC, 128 AD3d 885 [2015]; Giannetto v Knee, 82 AD3d 1043, 1045-1046 [2011]; Owen v Mackinnon, 6 AD3d 684, 686 [2004]; cf. Saretto v Panos, 120 AD3d 786 [2014]; Plain v Vassar Bros. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ducillo v. Hudson Valley at Saint Francis, LLC
green
2 sentences2015Francis, LLC, 128 AD3d 885 [2015]; Giannetto v Knee, 82 AD3d 1043, 1045-1046 [2011]; Owen v Mackinnon, 6 AD3d 684, 686 [2004]; cf. Saretto v Panos, 120 AD3d 786 [2014]; Plain v Vassar Bros. 2015Francis, LLC, 128 AD3d 885 [2015]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Zoe G. v. Frederick F. G.
green
1 sentence2011Further, the plaintiff cannot rely on the affidavit authored by Ravikumar in seeking to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel against Aziz and WMC (see Zoe G. v Frederick F.G., 208 AD2d 675 [1994]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hochberg v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2008Corp., 227 AD2d 127, 128 [1996]) or a ground for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against HHC (see Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hochberg v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence2008Corp., 227 AD2d 127, 128 [1996]) or a ground for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against HHC (see Hochberg v City of New York, 99 AD2d 1028 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 665 [1984]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Novak & Co. v. Board of Education
neutral
1 sentence2006There is no basis in this record to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the Village (see Reed v City of Syracuse, 309 AD2d 1195,1197 [2003]; Novak & Co., L.T. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 217 AD2d 575 [1995]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Doctors Council v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
green
1 sentence1997Transporters Assn. v Perales, 11 NY2d 126; Doctors Council v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 127 AD2d 380 , revd on other grounds 71 NY2d 669 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
La Porto v. Village of Philmont
green
1 sentence1997Under these circumstances, the Village’s submissions are insufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the County (see, La Porto v Village of Philmont, 39 NY2d 7 ; Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 NY2d 274 ; Matter of New York State Med. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Parkview Associates v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1997Under these circumstances, the Village’s submissions are insufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the County (see, La Porto v Village of Philmont, 39 NY2d 7 ; Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 NY2d 274 ; Matter of New York State Med. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Doctors Council v. New York City Employees' Retirement System
green
1 sentence1997Transporters Assn. v Perales, 11 NY2d 126; Doctors Council v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 127 AD2d 380 , revd on other grounds 71 NY2d 669 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nicholas v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1991Corp., 162 AD2d 492 ; Henderson v City of New York, 143 AD2d 884 ; Nicholas v City of New York, 130 AD2d 470 ; Albano v Long Is. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Henderson v. City of New York
neutral
1 sentence1991Corp., 162 AD2d 492 ; Henderson v City of New York, 143 AD2d 884 ; Nicholas v City of New York, 130 AD2d 470 ; Albano v Long Is. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ceely v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
green
1 sentence1991Corp., 162 AD2d 492 ; Henderson v City of New York, 143 AD2d 884 ; Nicholas v City of New York, 130 AD2d 470 ; Albano v Long Is. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State ex rel. H. v. P.
green
1 sentence1987H. v P., 90 AD2d 434 ; Hill v Hill, 20 AD2d 923 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Boyles v. Boyles
green
1 sentence1987Contrary to the appellant’s further contention, given the fact that the petitioner and her former husband never cohabited during the period of gestation or after the birth of the child, and the fact that the instant proceeding was not brought for the sole purpose of advancing the petitioner’s custody or visitation rights, but solely for the support of the child, we find no reason to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel against her (cf., Matter of Boyles v Boyles, 95 AD2d 95 ; State of New York ex rel. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hill v. Hill
green
1 sentence1987H. v P., 90 AD2d 434 ; Hill v Hill, 20 AD2d 923 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Eden v. Board of Trustees
green
1 sentence1977(Eden v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y., 49 AD2d 277, 284 , mot for stay den 38 NY2d 938 .) The State, in effect, requests this court to sanction conduct whereby the State has invited a putative claimant to negotiate a claim in good faith without litigation, to then tersely break off negotiations and invite the claimant to pursue his remedy via litigation; and finally, to turn around and assert that the claimant’s attempt to litigate the matter is untimely. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.