West Farms Estate Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

West Farms Estate Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co.

75 A.D.2d 622, 426 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11086

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

DecidedApril 21, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 622 (West Farms Estate Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co.) 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

West Farms Estate Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 75 A.D.2d 622, 426 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which pursuant to CPLR 103, was converted into an action for a declaratory judgment, Consolidated Edison Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 7, 1979, which declared that it is obligated to install 11 service laterals as part of a normal service installation, without charge. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and it is declared that the appellant is not obligated to install 11 service laterals as part of a normal service installation, without charge. On the facts presented, we are of the opinion that the petitioner failed to adequately establish the elements of an equitable estoppel. Any reliance by the petitioner on the vague oral assurance of one of the appellant’s service representatives, coupled with the failure of appellant to respond to two of petitioner’s engineer’s letters, was wholly unreasonable under the circumstances. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which pursuant to CPLR 103, was converted into an action for a declaratory judgment, Consolidated Edison Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 7, 1979, which declared that it is obligated to install 11 service laterals as part of a normal service installation, without charge. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and it is declared that the appellant is not obligated to install 11 service laterals as part of a normal service installation, without charge. On the facts presented, we are of the opinion that the petitioner failed to adequately establish the elements of an equitable estoppel. Any reliance by the petitioner on the vague oral assurance of one of the appellant’s service representatives, coupled with the failure of appellant to respond to two of petitioner’s engineer’s letters, was wholly unreasonable under the circumstances. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 622, 426 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-farms-estate-co-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack