American Bartenders School, Inc. v. 105 Madison Co.
American Bartenders School, Inc. v. 105 Madison Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel should not be applied in this case. The purpose of invoking the doctrine is to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another (3 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 533A, at p 798; Imperator Realty Co. v Tull, 228 NY 447, 453 ). It cannot be said that an “unconscionable” injury to plaintiff has resulted from defendant’s refusal to execute the lease modification. Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant’s profit motive somehow renders its conduct inequitable would seem to be irrelevant, inasmuch as the concern is for whether defendant’s conduct has unjustly injured plaintiff. The circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel (see Ginsberg v Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 AD2d 318 ).
In addition, the doctrine of part performance is inapplicable, inasmuch as the performance is not “unequivocally referable” to the alleged oral agreement (e.g., Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230 ).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(dismissing equitable estoppel counterclaim where “it would be inequitable to allow the [defendants to] seek to obtain the benefit of a transaction that was void ab initio”)
-
(“[T]he doctrine of part performance is inapplicable, inasmuch as the performance is not ‘unequivocally referable’ to the alleged oral agreement.”)
Cited by 55 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts14
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts37
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Nasso v. Bio Reference Laboratories, Inc.
- Merex A.G. v. Fairchild Weston Systems Inc.
- HAWLEY FUEL COALMART, INC. v. STEAG HANDEL, GmbH.
- East River Savings Bank v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
- Braniff, Inc. v. GPA Group PLC (In re Braniff, Inc.)
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Sears Realty Co., Inc.
Most recent
- 500 West 43rd Street Realty, LLC v. Thukral
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company
- Tech+IP Advisory, LLC v. BlackBerry Limited
- Mtivity Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc.
- Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America
- Crews v. The County of Nassau
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.