Pahlad v. Brustman
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- B.F. v. Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Genger v. Genger (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- U.S. Educ. Loan Trust IV, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- MBI International Holdings Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- B.F. v. Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, Marie Dennehy v. Alan B. Copperman, M.D. (N.Y. 2017)
- B.F. v. Reprod. Med. Assocs. of N.Y., LLP (N.Y. 2017)
- Jang Ho Choi v. Beautri Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Bank of NY Mellon v. WMC Mtge., LLC (New York Supreme Court 2016)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. WMC Mortgage, LLC (New York Supreme Court 2016)
- De Sole v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Martin Hilti Family Trust v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- McDonald v. Edelman & Edelman, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- McDonald v. Edelman & Edelman, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- McDonald v. Edelman & Edelman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- McDonald v. Edelman & Edelman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Neil v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Javaheri v. Old Cedar Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Kytel International Group, Inc. v. Total-Tel Carrier Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Close-Barzin v. Christie's, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiffs had “timely awareness of the facts requiring [them] to make farther inquiry before the statute of limitations expired,” and an equitable estoppel defense to the statute of limitations is therefore “inappropriate as a matter of law” (see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553-554 [2006]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.