Yassin v. Sarabu

284 A.D.2d 531, 727 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 25, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 531 (Yassin v. Sarabu) 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
Yassin v. Sarabu, 284 A.D.2d 531, 727 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Westchester County Health Care Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated August 23, 2000, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that the action was time-barred.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The doctrine of estoppel will be applied against governmental agencies only in exceptional cases (see, Zaiman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 186 AD2d 555). A municipality may be estopped from asserting that a claim was untimely filed when its improper conduct induced reliance by a plaintiff who changed his or her position to his or her detriment (see, Matter of Griffith v Staten Is. Rapid Transp. Operating Auth., 269 AD2d 596, 597; Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662).

Here, the conduct of the defendant Westchester County Health Care Corporation did not warrant the application of the doctrine of estoppel (see, Matter of Quintero v Town of Babylon Indus. Dev. Agency, 172 AD2d 527). Only a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or similar affirmative misconduct, along with reasonable reliance thereon, will justify the imposition of estoppel (see, DeGori v Long Is. R. R., 202 AD2d 549; Gallo v County of Westchester, 162 AD2d 584; Graber v City of New York, 89 AD2d 598). Accordingly, the motion should have been granted. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Maimonides Med. Ctr. v. New York City Water Dept.
2018 NY Slip Op 6094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Tortorici v. City of New York
131 A.D.3d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Stone Bridge Farms, Inc. v. County of Columbia
88 A.D.3d 1209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Jenal v. Brown
80 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mayayev v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bus
74 A.D.3d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Enforcement of Tax Liens by County of Orange
75 A.D.3d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Hartsdale Fire District v. Eastland Construction, Inc.
65 A.D.3d 1345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Mohl v. Town of Riverhead
62 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
State v. White Oak Co.
13 A.D.3d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Wilson v. City of Buffalo
298 A.D.2d 994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Gowin v. Town of Pulteney
294 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Concerned Port Residents Committee v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point
291 A.D.2d 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 531, 727 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yassin-v-sarabu-nyappdiv-2001.