In re Silverstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Silverstein

271 A.D.2d 340, 705 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4400

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 340 (In re Silverstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Silverstein, 271 A.D.2d 340, 705 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to either CPLR 3211 or 3212, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondents, having conceded that they did not change position in reliance on petitioner’s alleged inaction, and having offered only bare, conclusory allegations of prejudice, are not entitled to dismissal on the ground of laches (see, Provost v Off Campus Apts. Co., II, 211 AD2d 850, 852) or estoppel (cf., Board of Mgrs. v Gottlieb, 186 AD2d 525, 527, lv denied 82 NY2d 655). Nor have they shown themselves entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the merits. We have considered respondents-appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about April 12, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to either CPLR 3211 or 3212, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondents, having conceded that they did not change position in reliance on petitioner’s alleged inaction, and having offered only bare, conclusory allegations of prejudice, are not entitled to dismissal on the ground of laches (see, Provost v Off Campus Apts. Co., II, 211 AD2d 850, 852) or estoppel (cf., Board of Mgrs. v Gottlieb, 186 AD2d 525, 527, lv denied 82 NY2d 655). Nor have they shown themselves entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the merits. We have considered respondents-appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 340, 705 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-silverstein-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack