Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action eleven years after the respondent defaulted on his mortgage payments and, accordingly, beyond the expiration of the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations. There is no evidence that the respondent's promises to pay were intended to lull the plaintiffs into inactivity until after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, giving rise to an estoppel (see, Bennett v Metro-North...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
