Legal Opinion
Pahlad v. Brustman
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 27, 2007PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiffs had “timely awareness of the facts requiring [them] to make farther inquiry before the statute of limitations expired,” and an equitable estoppel defense to the statute of limitations is therefore “inappropriate as a matter of law” (see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553-554 [2006]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11),…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Putter v. North Shore University HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
3Cited by18 opinions
- Martin Hilti Family Trust v. Knoedler Gallery, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- De Sole v. Knoedler Gallery, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- B.F. v. Reprod. Med. Assocs. of N.Y., LLPCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 2017
- MBI International Holdings Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Jang Ho Choi v. Beautri Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.