Ragno v. Nationwide Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ragno v. Nationwide Associates, Inc.

35 A.D.3d 321, 826 N.Y.S.2d 615

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 321 (Ragno v. Nationwide Associates, Inc.) 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

Ragno v. Nationwide Associates, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 321, 826 N.Y.S.2d 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 14, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants-respondents arose, at the latest, in 1990. Accordingly, the complaint as against those defendants, which was not interposed until 1999, is time-barred. The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not avail plaintiff since there is no evidence that plaintiffs decedent “was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception . . . from filing a timely action” (Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 448-449 [1978]; Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 122 [2003]). Indeed, the evidence establishes that plaintiffs decedent forbore from commencing an action even though he was aware before 1991 that the funds he had given to defendant Perla had not been invested in accordance with their agreement (see Green v Albert, 199 AD2d 465 [1993]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 14, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants-respondents arose, at the latest, in 1990. Accordingly, the complaint as against those defendants, which was not interposed until 1999, is time-barred. The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not avail plaintiff since there is no evidence that plaintiffs decedent “was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception . . . from filing a timely action” (Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 448-449 [1978]; Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 122 [2003]). Indeed, the evidence establishes that plaintiffs decedent forbore from commencing an action even though he was aware before 1991 that the funds he had given to defendant Perla had not been invested in accordance with their agreement (see Green v Albert, 199 AD2d 465 [1993]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 321, 826 N.Y.S.2d 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragno-v-nationwide-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack