Pahlad v. Brustman
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiffs had “timely awareness of the facts requiring [them] to make farther inquiry before the statute of limitations expired,” and an equitable estoppel defense to the statute of limitations is therefore “inappropriate as a matter of law” (see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553-554 [2006]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
865 N.E.2d 1240 (Pahlad v. Brustman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.