Cranesville Block Co., Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1991 |
| Citation | 175 A.D.2d 444,572 N.Y.S.2d 495 |
| Parties | CRANESVILLE BLOCK COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Horigan, Horigan, Pennock & Lombardo, P.C. (Richard T. Horigan, of counsel), Amsterdam, for appellant.
Maider & Smith (Robert L. Maider, of counsel), Gloversville, for respondent.
Before CASEY, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, CREW and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Best, J.), entered July 9, 1990 in Montgomery County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In 1965, defendant conveyed real property in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County, to plaintiff, together with an easement permitting use of two existing railroad spur lines over remaining property of defendant. During the period September 14, 1983 to November 2, 1983, defendant replaced an existing six-inch gas transmission line, which traversed defendant's property and passed under both of the spur lines, with an eight-inch gas line. In so doing, on September 28, 1983, defendant severed the tracks of one of the spur lines. Plaintiff first became aware of the damage in April 1986 and advised defendant of its claim for the cost of repair and, in addition, of the need to place the new gas line at a sufficient depth to permit safe passage of railroad cars over the spur line. Negotiations ensued through the latter part of 1986 and defendant made a settlement offer on December 18, 1986. However, plaintiff did not accept the offer until April 30, 1987, at which time defendant advised plaintiff that the offer had been withdrawn.
Plaintiff then commenced this action, pleading causes of action in trespass, nuisance and fraud, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. As amplified by plaintiff's bill of particulars, the complaint alleges that defendant, inter alia, negligently and carelessly removed a section of railroad tracks and ties and installed a gas line in a manner unacceptable to railroad engineering specifications. The fraud cause of action is based upon the theory that, through settlement negotiations, defendant lulled plaintiff into delaying legal action until the Statute of Limitations had run. Following discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action as barred by the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214[4]. Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals.
Initially, we reject the claim that defendant is estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations as a defense because of the settlement negotiations which took place during the fall of 1986. While a defendant may be estopped from asserting the defense of the Statute of Limitations when it has by its conduct "induced a party to postpone bringing suit on a known cause of action" (75 N.Y.Jur.2d, Limitations and Laches, § 29, at 199), settlement negotiations alone will not suffice to invoke the doctrine (see, Procco v. Kennedy, 88 A.D.2d 761, 451 N.Y.S.2d 487, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 804, 459 N.Y.S.2d 267, 445 N.E.2d 650). Here, there is no evidence of defendant's fraud, deception, misrepresentation or a request or promise upon which plaintiff relied (see, Murphy v. Wegman's Food Mkts., 140 A.D.2d 973, 974, 529 N.Y.S.2d 648, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 808, 534 N.Y.S.2d 666, 531 N.E.2d 298; 75 N.Y.Jur.2d, Limitations and Laches, § 35, at 211). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly rejected the claim of estoppel and dismissed plaintiff's fraud cause of action and demand for punitive damages. We note in this regard that the Statute of Limitations had already run at the time of defendant's December 18, 1986 settlement offer.
We also reject the contention that the Statute of Limitations did not begin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Chevron U.S.. Inc. v. Comm'r of Envtl. Conservation
...was not the case here ( cf. Phillips v. Dweck, 300 A.D.2d 969, 969, 750 N.Y.S.2d 910 [2002]; Cranesville Block Co. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 175 A.D.2d 444, 445, 572 N.Y.S.2d 495 [1991]; Schirano v. Paggioli, 99 A.D.2d 802, 804, 472 N.Y.S.2d 391 [1984] ). 3. The record does not include......
-
Bild v. Konig
...While "settlement negotiations alone will not suffice to invoke the doctrine, " Cranesville Block Co., Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 175 A.D.2d 444, 445, 572 N.Y.S.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), a defendant "may be estopped from asserting the defense of the Statute of Limitations when ......
-
Kiernan v. Long Island R.R.
...defendant has by its conduct induced a party to postpone bringing suit on a known cause of action (Cranesville Block Co. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 175 A.D.2d 444, 572 N.Y.S.2d 495). To establish entitlement to estoppel, the plaintiff must set forth evidence showing that she was induced......
-
Town of Oyster Bay v. Lizza Indus., Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 89, 203 N.E.2d 486), or a “continuous interference” with their property easements ( Cranesville Block Co. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 175 A.D.2d 444, 446, 572 N.Y.S.2d 495 [3d Dept.1991] ). Accordingly, defendants' alleged wrongs do not give rise to successive causes of action u......