r of Hamptons Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Moore, supra at 93 n. 1; Matter of Montipark Realty Corp. v. Village of Monticello, 174 AD2d 876, 877; Brennan v. New York City Hous. Auth., 72 AD2d 410, 412-414), FASA may not avail itself of the exception here because it failed to undertake a reasonably-diligent inquiry into the applicability of relevant statutes ( see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York, supra; Waste Recovery Enters. v. Town of Unadilla, 294 AD2d 766, 768-769, lv denied 1 NY3d 507, cert denied ___ US ___, 124 S Ct 2839; Matter of Montipark Realty Corp. v. Village of Monticello, supra). Moreover, equitable estoppel cannot be invoked to relieve a party "from the mandatory operation of a statute" ( Matter of Hauben v. Goldin, 74 AD2d 804, 805; see Waste Recovery Enters. v. Town of Unadilla, supra at 768-769; Matter of Scheurer v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 223 AD2d 379; Grishman v. City of New York, 183 AD2d 464, 466; Wood v. Cordello, 91 AD2d 1178, 1179; cf. Matter of Sea Cliff Manor v. Glen Cove Planning Bd., 39 Misc 2d 50, affd 22 AD2d 855). Because FASA, in effect, sought relief from the mandatory consequences of Village Law ยง 7-728 (11), estoppel against the Village was unavailable. The Village thus established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and FASA failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.