Langston v. MFM Contracting Corp.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Langston v. MFM Contracting Corp., 172 A.D.3d 583, 102 N.Y.S.3d 12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
• Decision Date: 23 May 2019
• Docket Number: Index 155255/14,9393-9393A
• Parties: Erin LANGSTON, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. MFM CONTRACTING CORP., et al., Defendants, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Defendant–Appellant.

172 A.D.3d 583

102 N.Y.S.3d 12

Erin LANGSTON, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents,

v.MFM CONTRACTING CORP., et al., Defendants,The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Defendant–Appellant.

9393-9393A

Index 155255/14

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: MAY 23, 2019

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant.

Erlanger Law Firm PLLC, New York (Robert K. Erlanger of counsel), for respondents.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Kern, Moulton, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered June 21, 2018, which denied defendant Trustees of Columbia University's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it on statute of limitations grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 17, 2018, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiffs raised an issue of fact as to whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should preclude defendant from asserting its statute of limitations defense (see Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 448–449, 406 N.Y.S.2d 259, 377 N.E.2d 713 [1978] ). Their counsel's affirmation detailing his communications with defendant, supported by the emails and documents exchanged, establishes that defendant misled plaintiffs about its ownership of the pipe beneath the gouge in the roadway on which plaintiff Erin Langston tripped and fell, inducing plaintiffs to refrain from filing a timely action against it. Even if it were true that defendant did not own the pipe, its evasiveness in response to plaintiffs' requests for information about its relationship to the pipe or the function of the pipe is an affirmative act of concealment that could give rise to equitable estoppel (see General Stencils v. Chiappa, 18 N.Y.2d 125, 128, 272...