From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kiernan v. Long Island Rail Road

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1994
209 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint when the Statute of Limitations has run, a court may estop a defendant from asserting that defense when the 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). To establish entitlement to estoppel, the plaintiff must set forth evidence showing that she was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or deception to refrain from commencing a timely action (Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442; Rains v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 120 A.D.2d 509), or the plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in conduct which was "calculated to mislead * * * plaintiff", and that the plaintiff, in reliance thereon, failed to timely commence the action (Robinson v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 260, 263).

It is well-settled law in New York that the mere fact that settlement negotiations have been ongoing between parties is insufficient to estop a party from asserting the Statute of Limitations as a defense (Cranesville Block Co. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., supra; Marvel v. Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 114 A.D.2d 612; Procco v. Kennedy, 88 A.D.2d 761). Settlement negotiations do not give rise to an estoppel, where, as here, there is no evidence that the defendants intended thereby to lull the plaintiff into inactivity until after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations (see, Terry v. Long Is. R.R., 207 A.D.2d 881; DeGori v. Long Is. R.R., 202 A.D.2d 549; see also, Montelione v. Greenburg Edgemont Union Free School Dist., 175 A.D.2d 113; Murphy v. Wegman's Food Mkts., 140 A.D.2d 973; Procco v Kennedy, 88 A.D.2d 761, supra, affd 58 N.Y.2d 804; Brown v Davis, 88 A.D.2d 702; Van Hoesen v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 86 A.D.2d 733).

We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kiernan v. Long Island Rail Road

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1994
209 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Kiernan v. Long Island Rail Road

Case Details

Full title:RITA KIERNAN, Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 21, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 723

Citing Cases

Kidney v. Webster

And "[i]t is well-settled law in New York that the mere fact that settlement negotiations have been ongoing…

Dailey v. Mazel Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff's affidavit fails to disclose any conduct on CNA's part that can be construed as calculated to lull…