Search Results

In March of this year, this Blog wrote about the voluntary payment doctrine ( here ) and how it is alive On November 15, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed the doctrine and the defense of economic duress in affirming the dismissal of a complaint under the doctrine. The “voluntary payment doctrine … bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the Under the doctrine, “ he onus is on a party that receives what it perceives as an improper demand for

Thus, the prior arbitration award barred the subsequent action under res judicata. [1] Under the doctrine merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter. [2]  The doctrine also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation. [3]  The rationale underlying the doctrine economy as well as fairness to the parties mandate, at some point, an end to litigation.” [9]   The doctrine Parke Rose Mgt. Sys. , 138 A.D.2d 575, 577 (2d Dept. 1988) [11]   Milone v.

Haber In New York, the doctrine of caveat emptor — “let the buyer beware” — remains an important principle Under the doctrine, buyers are expected to investigate all aspects of a property’s condition, such as However, the doctrine is not absolute. New York courts recognize exceptions to the doctrine. At the same time, the doctrine is not without limits. The caveat emptor doctrine’s strength is further reinforced through contractual protections.

Haber On numerous occasions, this Blog has examined the attorney-client privilege, the common interest doctrine , and the attorney work product doctrine.[1] Today, we take another opportunity to explore the contours rejecting claims that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine The doctrine originated in the context of criminal cases, where the courts “allowed the attorneys of Takeaway Simpson reinforces the principle that the common interest doctrine is limited to situations

dealing with real estate transactions, fraudulent misrepresentation claims “must be analyzed within the doctrine “New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). or the seller's agents thwarted the plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine circumstances to establish that the defendants thwarted his efforts to satisfy his obligations under the doctrine

dealing with real estate transactions, fraudulent misrepresentation claims “must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor.”[5] “New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine and status and did not thwart the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill its responsibilities fixed by the doctrine The decision also underscores the point that New York courts continue to adhere strictly to the doctrine

“The election of remedies doctrine requires knowledge of the alleged breach and an affirmative action “Typically, where courts find that a breach claim is barred by the doctrine of ‘election of remedies, The doctrine of substantial performance ( i.e. , substantial compliance) is flexible one and “stands The substantial performance doctrine does not apply in every instance. Seward Park Housing Corp. , 79 A.D.3d 425, 426 (1st Dept. 2010); Morris v. 702 E. Fifth St.

Simply stated, the “Voluntary Payment Doctrine” bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full The Doctrine has been around for quite some time.  Relying on the “Voluntary Payment Doctrine”, the Gimbel Brothers court held that the “Sunday charges The Dillon Court of Appeals, agreeing with “both lower courts that the voluntary payment doctrine bars Harris, PLLC ; presumably the most recent New York decision applying the Voluntary Payment Doctrine. 

Nesbitt , 40 A.D.3d at 598 (some citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “ odified in New York’s General Obligations Law, section 5-703(4), the doctrine of part performance In order for one to avail itself of the doctrine, the partial performance relied upon must be “unequivocally Moreover, the definiteness doctrine requires that promises must be “sufficiently certain and specific This BLOG has previously discussed the definiteness doctrine < here =">here</a>"> .

“The doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents a party from denying her own expressed or implied admission Stated differently, the purpose of the doctrine “is to prevent someone from enforcing rights that would “The law imposes the doctrine as a matter of fairness.” Nov. 26, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed the doctrine of equitable Such evidence was enough for plaintiffs to satisfy the elements of the equitable estoppel doctrine. _

The motion court rejected application of the continuing wrong doctrine and found plaintiff’s evidence—including The motion court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the continuing wrong doctrine would entitle it to six years: “While plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations is tolled by the continuing wrong doctrine , even if that doctrine applies here, it would not extend plaintiffs entitlement to damages beyond six Yuzek, 222 A.D.3d 931, 935 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Collateral Estoppel : A Primer The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating The doctrine applies when: “(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior Collateral estoppel “is a doctrine intended to reduce litigation and conserve the resources of the court The doctrine is an equitable defense “grounded in the facts and realities of a particular litigation, Defendants moved, inter alia , to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that the doctrine