Novak & Co. v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Novak & Co. v. Board of Education

217 A.D.2d 575, 628 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7723

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 575 (Novak & Co. v. Board of Education) 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

Novak & Co. v. Board of Education, 217 A.D.2d 575, 628 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 19, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that "[ajbsent an unusual factual situation, 'estoppel is not available against a governmental agency engaging in the exercise of its governmental functions’ ” (Advanced Refractory Technologies v Power Auth., 81 NY2d [576]*576670, 677, quoting D’Angelo v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 65 NY2d 714, 715-716). The plaintiff has failed to establish that such an unusual factual situation exists sufficient to entitle it to equitably estop the defendant from asserting the defense of the Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of Gross v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 122 AD2d 793). Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that the plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 19, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that "[ajbsent an unusual factual situation, 'estoppel is not available against a governmental agency engaging in the exercise of its governmental functions’ ” (Advanced Refractory Technologies v Power Auth., 81 NY2d [576]*576670, 677, quoting D’Angelo v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 65 NY2d 714, 715-716). The plaintiff has failed to establish that such an unusual factual situation exists sufficient to entitle it to equitably estop the defendant from asserting the defense of the Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of Gross v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 122 AD2d 793). Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that the plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 575, 628 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novak-co-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack