Reep v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District

57 A.D.3d 754, 868 N.Y.2d 914
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[755] Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant was estopped from asserting a notice of claim defense as a matter of law (see Conquest Cleaning Corp. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 279 AD2d 546 [2001]).

Additionally, the Supreme Court properly determined, in effect, that based upon the undisputed facts the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense (see Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 675 [2006]; Gleason v Spota, 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Reep v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District, 57 A.D.3d 754, 868 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

57 A.D.3d 754 (Reep v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Konner v. New York City Transit Authority
2016 NY Slip Op 6683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)