8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
ZULEY, M.D., MARGARITA v. ELIZABETH WENDE BREAST CARE, LLCgreen2 sentences2021However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an unconscionable injury" ( Zuley v Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC , 126 AD3d 1460, 1461 [4th Dept 2015], amended on rearg 129 AD3d 1558 [4th Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2017Even where these elements have been adequately alleged, “the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an unconscionable injury” (AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 58 AD3d 6, 20-21 [2d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Zuley v Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC, 126 AD3d 1460, 1460 [4th Dept 2015], amended 129 AD3d 1558 [2015]). | 3 | 3 |
AHA Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Products, Inc.green2 sentences2024The doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an "unconscionable injury" ( AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc. , 58 AD3d 6, 21 ). 2017Even where these elements have been adequately alleged, “the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an unconscionable injury” (AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 58 AD3d 6, 20-21 [2d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Zuley v Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC, 126 AD3d 1460, 1460 [4th Dept 2015], amended 129 AD3d 1558 [2015]). | 2 | 5 |
Miller v. Webb of Buffalo, LLCgreen2 sentences2021However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an unconscionable injury" ( Zuley v Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC , 126 AD3d 1460, 1461 [4th Dept 2015], amended on rearg 129 AD3d 1558 [4th Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2017Even where these elements have been adequately alleged, “the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an unconscionable injury” (AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 58 AD3d 6, 20-21 [2d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Zuley v Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC, 126 AD3d 1460, 1460 [4th Dept 2015], amended 129 AD3d 1558 [2015]). | 2 | 3 |
D & N Boening, Inc. v. Kirsch Beverages, Inc.green2 sentences2009Recovery under the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered unconscionable injury (see Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; Gary Powell, Inc. v Mendel/Borg Group, 237 AD2d 407, 408 [1997]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 523-524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]). 2008However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an “unconscionable injury” (D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]; Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]). | 2 | 2 |
Dunn v. B&H Associatesgreen2 sentences2009Recovery under the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered unconscionable injury (see Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; Gary Powell, Inc. v Mendel/Borg Group, 237 AD2d 407, 408 [1997]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 523-524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]). 2008However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an “unconscionable injury” (D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]; Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]). | 2 | 2 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2021Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true ( see Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we conclude that the amended complaint states a cause of action for promissory estoppel. | 1 | 1 |
Chemical Bank v. City of Jamestowngreen1 sentence2015However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an ‘unconscionable injury’ ” (AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 58 AD3d 6, 20-21 [2008]; see Chemical Bank v City of Jamestown, 122 AD2d 530, 531 [1986], lv denied 68 NY2d 608 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
Halliwell v. Gordongreen1 sentence2014However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an “unconscionable injury” (Halliwell v Gordon, 61 AD3d 932, 934 [2d Dept 2009]; AHA Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 58 AD3d 6 [2d Dept 2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Gartenhaus v. Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Ziongreen1 sentence2009Recovery under the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered unconscionable injury (see Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; Gary Powell, Inc. v Mendel/Borg Group, 237 AD2d 407, 408 [1997]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 523-524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
D & N Boening, Inc. v. Kirsch Beverages, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Recovery under the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered unconscionable injury (see Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; Gary Powell, Inc. v Mendel/Borg Group, 237 AD2d 407, 408 [1997]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 523-524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]). 2008However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is limited to cases where the promisee suffered an “unconscionable injury” (D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]; Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]). | 2 | 2008–2009 |