Siegel v. Alpha Chemical Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Alpha Chemical Partners

184 A.D.2d 285, 587 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881

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

DecidedJune 11, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 285 (Siegel v. Alpha Chemical Partners) 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

Siegel v. Alpha Chemical Partners, 184 A.D.2d 285, 587 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Six orders, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), one entered May 20, 1991, two entered May 21, 1991, two entered May 22, 1991 and one entered January 22, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motions of the respective defendants to dismiss each of the actions on the ground that they were time barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with IAS court that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient evidentiary facts to warrant application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel (Rockwell v Ortho Pharm. Co., 510 F Supp 266). Moreover, plaintiffs failed to establish that they diligently pursued their claims when they were aware, or should have been aware, that the claims existed (see, General Stencils v Chiappa, 18 NY2d 125, 127). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Six orders, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), one entered May 20, 1991, two entered May 21, 1991, two entered May 22, 1991 and one entered January 22, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motions of the respective defendants to dismiss each of the actions on the ground that they were time barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with IAS court that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient evidentiary facts to warrant application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel (Rockwell v Ortho Pharm. Co., 510 F Supp 266). Moreover, plaintiffs failed to establish that they diligently pursued their claims when they were aware, or should have been aware, that the claims existed (see, General Stencils v Chiappa, 18 NY2d 125, 127). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 285, 587 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-alpha-chemical-partners-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack