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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 1980·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

75 A.D.2d 622 (West Farms Estate Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related