Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick

3 Citing cases

  1. 500 W. 43rd St. Realty v. Thukral

    23-cv-09510 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025)

    Courts have held that equitable estoppel, as an equitable defense, “ha[s] no place in an action at law for enforcement of a guaranty.” Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (citations omitted); accord Avamer 57 Fee LLC v. Gorgeous Bride, Inc., 2022 WL 1305986, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 02, 2022) (citation omitted); United States v. Gordon, 78 F.3d 781, 786 (2d Cir. 1996).

  2. Solis v. Beacon Assocs. Mgmt. Corp.

    09 Civ. 777 (LBS) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011)

    Defendants plead in conclusory terms that the Secretary's claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, and unclean hands; "mere recitation of the legal buzzwords, however, will not suffice." Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. v. Veneglia, No. 94 Civ. 1400, 1997 WL 135946, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 1997) (striking defenses of estoppel and laches); Obabueki, 145 F. Supp. 2d at 401 ("Pleading the words 'unclean hands' without more . . . is not a sufficient statement of such defense."); Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00 Civ. 3856 (SHS), 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (striking estoppel, laches, and unclean hands defenses on grounds that "mere pleading of the defense . . . without more is insufficient"). Were the Court to permit Defendants to amend their Answers to include the factual allegations contained in their opposition briefs, Defendants do not allege facts that would support an estoppel, laches, or unclean hands defense.

  3. Federal National Mtge. Assoc. v. Olympia Mtge. Corp.

    04 CV 4971 (NG) (MDG), 04 CV 4971 (NG) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2007)

    Counterclaim at 17, ¶ 2. Merely pleading a defense, without factual allegations, is insufficient. Daiwa Special Asset Corp. v. Desnick, No. 00-3856, 2002 WL 1997922, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002); Obabueki v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 145 F. Supp. 2d 371, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Here, Pinter identifies no bases for the defenses he asserts.