Tilles Inv. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay
| Decision Date | 08 August 1994 |
| Citation | 615 N.Y.S.2d 895,207 A.D.2d 393 |
| Parties | TILLES INVESTMENT COMPANY, etc., Appellant-Respondent, v. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City (Charles G. Moerdler, Albert M. Appel, Lisa Rosenthal, and Nancy Allen Markhoff, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Rosenman & Colin, New York City, and John Venditto, Town Atty., Oyster Bay (Gerald Walpin and Jeffrey L. Braun, of counsel), for respondent-appellant (one brief filed).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the existing zoning of its property was invalid, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated April 7, 1992, as, inter alia, denied its motion for partial summary judgment on its first, third, fourth and sixth causes of action, and the defendant Town of Oyster Bay cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court correctly held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel was inapplicable to the instant case. Generally, judicial estoppel will be applied where a party to an action has secured a judgment in its favor in a prior action by adopting a certain position and then has sought to assume a contrary position in the second action simply because its interests have changed (see, Anonymous v. Anonymous, 137 A.D.2d 739, 524 N.Y.S.2d 823; see also, Northern Metro. Residential Health Care Facility v. Ledri Realty Assocs., 179 A.D.2d 133, 137, 582 N.Y.S.2d 521; Hinman, Straub, Pigors & Manning v. Broder, 124 A.D.2d 392, 393, 507 N.Y.S.2d 761). The evidence reveals that the Town of Oyster Bay (hereinafter the Town) did not secure a favorable judgment in prior litigation as a result of its adoption of an inconsistent position regarding the nature of its comprehensive zoning plan (see, Anonymous v. Anonymous, 137 A.D.2d 739, 524 N.Y.S.2d 823, supra).
Furthermore, in view of the existence of mixed questions of law and fact, the Supreme Court properly denied the Town's cross motion for summary judgment (see, Mottes v. Hambrecht & Quist, 126 A.D.2d 611, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1000).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. 735 Bedford LLC
...Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allston , 300 A.D.2d 669, 670, 751 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2d Dept. 2002] ; see also Tilles Inv. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay , 207 A.D.2d 393, 394, 615 N.Y.S.2d 895 [2d Dept. 1994] ). Such doctrine "rests upon the principle that a litigant ‘should not be permitted ... to lead a c......
-
Re/Max of N.Y., Inc. v. Weber
...(see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allston, 300 A.D.2d 669, 670, 751 N.Y.S.2d 795 ; Tilles Inv. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 207 A.D.2d 393, 394, 615 N.Y.S.2d 895 ). This doctrine "rests upon the principle that a litigant ‘should not be permitted ... to lead a court to find a fa......
-
R.I. v. T.I.
...[1d Dept.,1984] ; see also Anonymous v. Anonymous, 137 A.D.2d 739, 524 N.Y.S.2d 823 [2 Dept.,1988] ; Tilles Inv. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 207 A.D.2d 393, 615 N.Y.S.2d 895 [2d Dept.,1994] ). Judicial estoppel is intended to avoid abuse of the judicial system by preventing a party from obta......
-
Bihn v. Connelly
...prior proceeding (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allston, 300 A.D.2d 669, 670, 751 N.Y.S.2d 795 ; Tilles Inv. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 207 A.D.2d 393, 394, 615 N.Y.S.2d 895 ). This doctrine "rests upon the principle that a litigant ‘should not be permitted ... to lead a court to fi......