Reep v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reep v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District

57 A.D.3d 754, 868 N.Y.2d 914

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 754 (Reep v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District) 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

[755]*755Under 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

[755]*755Under 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 754, 868 N.Y.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reep-v-mamaroneck-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack