laches doctrine in New York

2025It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine.'" Edenwald Contracting Co v New York (60 NY2d 957, 959, 471 NYS2d 55, 56, 459 NE2d 164, 165 [1983])(quoting Siegel, New York Practice ).

2025It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine." Edenwald Contracting Co. v. New York, 60 NY2d 957,959 (1983), quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025:5, p 477; Pagan v. Quinn, 51 AD3d 1299, 1300-1301 (3 rd Dept. 2008); Clarkv.

2025As previously discussed, a laches claim requires a showing of an unreasonable delay that prejudices the other party ( see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d at 816).

2025As previously discussed, a laches claim requires a showing of an unreasonable delay that prejudices the other party ( see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d at 816 ).

2023The petitioner must make [the] demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of facts which give [them] a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner's claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Granto v City of Niagara Falls , 148 AD3d 1694, 1695 [4th Dept 2017]).

2023Thus, the proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches ( cf. Speis , 114 AD3d at 1182; see generally Granto , 148 AD3d at 1695-1696 ).

2015Furthermore, those branches of the respondents’ separate motions which were to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of laches should have been denied. “[T]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable” (Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17 , 20 [2013]; see Chase v Scavuzzo, 87 NY2d 228, 233 [1995]; Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo, 69 NY2d 901 [1987]; Montalvo v Mumpus Restorations, I

2013In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the preliminary conference calendar to the extent of “restoring] [it] to active status [and] transfer [ring] [it] to a non-city part.” In the same order, however, the Court also granted the separate cross motions of the defendants New York City Housing Authority and City of New York (hereinafter together the City defendants) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them “pursuant to the equitable doctrine of laches.” CPLR 3216 (b) states, in relevant part: “No dismissal [bas

2015Furthermore, those branches of the respondents’ separate motions which were to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of laches should have been denied. “[T]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable” (Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17 , 20 [2013]; see Chase v Scavuzzo, 87 NY2d 228, 233 [1995]; Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo, 69 NY2d 901 [1987]; Montalvo v Mumpus Restorations, I

2013In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the preliminary conference calendar to the extent of “restoring] [it] to active status [and] transfer [ring] [it] to a non-city part.” In the same order, however, the Court also granted the separate cross motions of the defendants New York City Housing Authority and City of New York (hereinafter together the City defendants) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them “pursuant to the equitable doctrine of laches.” CPLR 3216 (b) states, in relevant part: “No dismissal [bas

2024Laches does not Bar this Action The Majority Defendants argue that the plaintiffs' delay in initiating this action requires the Court to dismiss under the doctrine of laches. [FN16] "We have defined laches as an equitable bar, based on a lengthy neglect or omission to assert a right and the resulting prejudice to an adverse party ( see Matter of Barabash , 31 NY2d 76, 81 [1972]; see also Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 98 NY2d 165 , 173 n 4 [2002]).

2013Moreover, the action is not barred by the doctrine of laches, as the defendants were not prejudiced by the plaintiff s 4V2-year delay in commencing the action after the cause of action accrued (see Matter of Barabash, 31 NY2d 76, 81 [1972]).

2017“The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” (Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 137 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]).

2017“The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” (Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 137 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]).

2023It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, [*2]the very elements of the laches doctrine'" ( BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson , 159 AD3d 861 , 863, quoting HSBC Bank v Picarelli , 110 AD3d 1031, 1032 ).

2020It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'" ( BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson , 159 AD3d 861 , 863, quoting HSBC Bank v Picarelli , 110 AD3d 1031, 1032 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2013As with the broader issue of ownership, the doctrine of laches bars this claim, which limits the value of Alpizar’s interest, because Carr significantly delayed in asserting it in a timely manner (Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 81 NY2d 336 [1993]).

2013As with the broader issue of ownership, the doctrine of laches bars this claim, which limits the value of Alpizar’s interest, because Carr significantly delayed in asserting it in a timely manner (Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 81 NY2d 336 [1993]).

2025Moreover, Plaintiff alleges the expenditures have been ongoing, rendering the laches defense inapplicable (See Capruso v Village of Kings Point , 23 NY3d 631, 642 [2014], where the Court held, "Moreover, the doctrine of laches has no application when plaintiffs allege a continuing wrong.") Last, since the action is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, there is no attendant delay which would support a laches claim in the first instance.

2025Moreover, Plaintiff alleges the expenditures have been ongoing, rendering the laches defense inapplicable (See Capruso v Village of Kings Point , 23 NY3d 631, 642 [2014], where the Court held, "Moreover, the doctrine of laches has no application when plaintiffs allege a continuing wrong.") Last, since the action is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, there is no attendant delay which would support a laches claim in the first instance.

2023We therefore see no basis to impose a laches bar to prevent the citizens of New York from having districts drawn as the Constitution commands. 12 Sheerin states that the laches period may be “longer or shorter” than the statute of limitations ( 46 NY2d at 496 [emphasis added]), yet the dissent reads it as if “longer or” is missing from that opinion (see dissenting op at 16 n 2). - 28 - - 29 - No. 90 V.

2023In holding that the laches doctrine “owes no necessary obeisance” to the statute of limitations in mandamus proceedings, the Court was rejecting an argument that “once the right [to mandamus] is established, laches is unavailable to restrict . . . the remedy to cover a period longer or shorter than that prescribed by any available Statute of Limitations” ( 46 NY2d at 496 ).

2023"The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time and does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches" ( Granto , 148 AD3d at 1695 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[T]he four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand" ( id. at 1696 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Norton v City of Hornell , 115 AD3d 1232, 1233 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 907 [2014]).

2017Thus, to the extent that we held in Matter of Degnan v Rahn ( 2 AD3d 1301, 1302 [2003]) that a respondent is required to make a showing of prejudice to establish that a proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel is barred by the doctrine of laches, that case is no longer to be followed. “[T]he four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been ‘treat[ed] ... as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand’ ” (Norton, 115 AD3d at 1233 ).

2017“The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” (Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 137 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]).

2017“The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” (Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 137 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]).

2015One of the elements of a laches defense is lack of notice that the claimant would assert a claim for relief (Cohen v Krantz, 227 AD2d 581, 582 [1996]; Dwyer v Mazzola, 171 AD2d 726, 727 [1991]).

2011Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that this action is barred by the doctrine of laches (see generally Marcus v Village of Mamaroneck, 283 NY 325, 332 [1940]; Matter of Kuhn v Town of Johnstown, 248 AD2d 828, 830 [1998]; Cohen v Krantz, 227 AD2d 581, 582 [1996]).

2025A mere delay does not constitute a laches defense; prejudice is required to sustain a defense of laches and may be established by a showing of injury, change of position, loss of evidence, or some other disadvantage resulting from the delay ( see Skrodelis v Norbergs, 272 AD2d 316 [2d Dept 2000]).

2025Therefore, because a laches defense requires both a showing of a delay and resulting prejudice to the other party ( see Skrodelis , 272 AD2d at 316), Defendant's laches claim fails.

2009Any claim of equitable ownership that the plaintiff may have had to Timber Ridge Drive before it acquired title thereto in November 2002, and before the easement was created in May 2000, was barred by the doctrine of laches (see Resk v City of New York, 293 AD2d 661 [2002]; Skrodelis v Norbergs, 272 AD2d 316 [2000]; First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d 524, 525 [1996]).

2008Here, Purgess’s delay of nearly 11 years in seeking to vacate the order dated March 20, 1996, and the resulting prejudice to the defendants caused by the delay, warrants the application of the doctrine of laches (see First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d at 525 ).

2021Additionally, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the doctrine of laches does not apply, as the plaintiff failed to show that it was prejudiced by A.M.'s delay in asserting the defense of personal jurisdiction and alerting the parties and the Supreme Court to her status as an infant ( see Dwyer v Mazzola , 171 AD2d 726, 727-728 ).

2015One of the elements of a laches defense is lack of notice that the claimant would assert a claim for relief (Cohen v Krantz, 227 AD2d 581, 582 [1996]; Dwyer v Mazzola, 171 AD2d 726, 727 [1991]).

2024It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" ( Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 218 AD3d 542 , quoting U.S. Bank, N.A. v Sharif, 89 AD3d 723 [2d Dept 2011]).

2024It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" ( Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 218 AD3d 542 , quoting U.S. Bank, N.A. v Sharif, 89 AD3d 723 [2d Dept 2011]).

2014We agree with petitioner on her appeal that the court erred in granting respondent’s motion on the ground that this proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches (see generally Austin v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 NY2d 430, 442 [1959]; Matter of Kaye v Board of Educ., Merrick Union Free School Dist., 97 AD2d 794, 794-795 [1983]).

2014We agree with petitioner on her appeal that the court erred in granting respondent’s motion on the ground that this proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches (see generally Austin v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 NY2d 430, 442 [1959]; Matter of Kaye v Board of Educ., Merrick Union Free School Dist., 97 AD2d 794, 794-795 [1983]).

2014The petitioner must make his or her demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give him or her a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner’s claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches” (Matter of Barresi v County of Suffolk, 72 AD3d 1076, 1076 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010]; see Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 136-137 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]; Matter of Chevron U.S.A.

2014The petitioner must make his or her demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give him or her a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner’s claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches” (Matter of Barresi v County of Suffolk, 72 AD3d 1076, 1076 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010]; see Matter of Devens v Gokey, 12 AD2d 135, 136-137 [1961], affd 10 NY2d 898 [1961]; Matter of Chevron U.S.A.

2012The entire petition is properly dismissed based upon the doctrine of laches, which respondents pleaded and proved. 2 Dismissal based upon laches is appropriate where the following circumstances are present: “ ‘(1) conduct by an offending party giving rise to the situation complained of, (2) delay by the complainant in asserting his or her claim for relief despite the opportunity to do so, (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the offending party that the complainant would assert his or her claim for relief, and (4) injury or prejudice to the offending party in the event that relief is

2012The entire petition is properly dismissed based upon the doctrine of laches, which respondents pleaded and proved. 2 Dismissal based upon laches is appropriate where the following circumstances are present: “ ‘(1) conduct by an offending party giving rise to the situation complained of, (2) delay by the complainant in asserting his or her claim for relief despite the opportunity to do so, (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the offending party that the complainant would assert his or her claim for relief, and (4) injury or prejudice to the offending party in the event that relief is

2012Inasmuch as petitioner “proffered absolutely no excuse for his [more than 14-year] delay in making the demand” for the return of his money and property, the proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches (Matter of Schwartz v Morgenthau, 23 AD3d 231, 233 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 427 [2006]; see Matter of Thomas v City of Buffalo Inspections Dept., 275 AD2d 1004, 1004 [2000]; Matter of Densmore v Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent.

2012Inasmuch as petitioner “proffered absolutely no excuse for his [more than 14-year] delay in making the demand” for the return of his money and property, the proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches (Matter of Schwartz v Morgenthau, 23 AD3d 231, 233 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 427 [2006]; see Matter of Thomas v City of Buffalo Inspections Dept., 275 AD2d 1004, 1004 [2000]; Matter of Densmore v Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent.

2019The above circumstances further fail to reflect a prejudicial "neglect in promptly asserting a claim" by petitioners that would warrant applying the doctrine of laches ( Matter of Stockdale v Hughes , 189 AD2d 1065, 1067 [1993]; see Town of N. Elba v Grimditch , 131 AD3d at 158 ; Matter of Letourneau v Town of Berne , 89 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2011]).

2001Now turning to the merits of the laches claim, “[i]t is well settled that where neglect in promptly asserting a claim for relief causes prejudice to one’s adversary, such neglect operates as a bar to a remedy and is a basis for asserting the defense of laches” (Matter of Stockdale v Hughes, 189 AD2d 1065, 1067 ; see, Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 81 NY2d 336, 348 ; Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643 , lv denied 89 NY2d 811 ; Ughetta v Barile, 210 AD2d 562, 563-564 , lv denied 85 NY2d 805 ; Matter of Caprari v Town of Colesville, 199 AD2d 705, 706 )

2024It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'" (Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan, 189 AD3d 1360, 1362 , quoting BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson, 159 AD3d 861 , 863 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Park v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 183 AD3d 645, 646 ).

2023It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" ( Shields v Darpoh , 207 AD3d at 587 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan , 189 AD3d 1360, 1362 ; BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson , 159 AD3d 861 , 863).

2012Inasmuch as petitioner “proffered absolutely no excuse for his [more than 14-year] delay in making the demand” for the return of his money and property, the proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches (Matter of Schwartz v Morgenthau, 23 AD3d 231, 233 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 427 [2006]; see Matter of Thomas v City of Buffalo Inspections Dept., 275 AD2d 1004, 1004 [2000]; Matter of Densmore v Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent.

2012Inasmuch as petitioner “proffered absolutely no excuse for his [more than 14-year] delay in making the demand” for the return of his money and property, the proceeding is barred by the doctrine of laches (Matter of Schwartz v Morgenthau, 23 AD3d 231, 233 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 427 [2006]; see Matter of Thomas v City of Buffalo Inspections Dept., 275 AD2d 1004, 1004 [2000]; Matter of Densmore v Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent.