Opinion
May 5, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Special Term correctly concluded, following a hearing, that the defendants should not be estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations as a defense. There was no evidence that the defendants' claims manager willfully intended to mislead the plaintiffs' attorney into believing that settlement negotiations were imminent. The claims manager was not aware of exactly when the limitations period expired. Absent the defendants' willful intent to mislead, the plaintiffs' estoppel claim must be rejected. (Famulare v Huntington Hosp., 78 A.D.2d 547; see, Simcuski v Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 448-449). Furthermore, the plaintiffs have not established that the defendants' conduct caused them to forego commencing a timely action (see, Simcuski v Saeli, supra, p 449).
Finally, the plaintiffs have not established that they were justified in relying on the defendants' alleged representations (see, Simcuski v Saeli, supra). In sum, the plaintiffs cannot claim the shelter of the equitable estoppel doctrine (see, Rosas v Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 109 A.D.2d 647; Luka v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 323, affd 63 N.Y.2d 667). We have examined the plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.