In Zemel, after ruling that estoppel applied to the plaintiffs' claims, the Court considered, and rejected, the plaintiffs' argument that factual issues existed as to whether Horowitz fraudulently induced them to report the transaction for tax purposes as they did.
Summary of this case from Mahoney-Buntzman v. BuntzmanMarch 2, 2006.
Estoppel — Judicial Estoppel.
In Zemel, after ruling that estoppel applied to the plaintiffs' claims, the Court considered, and rejected, the plaintiffs' argument that factual issues existed as to whether Horowitz fraudulently induced them to report the transaction for tax purposes as they did.
Summary of this case from Mahoney-Buntzman v. BuntzmanFull title:ZEMEL v. HOROWITZ
Court:Supreme Court of the State of New York. NEW YORK COUNTY
Date published: Mar 2, 2006
( Johnson v Chapin, 49 AD3d 348.) IV. The application of the doctrine of quasi-estoppel to preclude defendant…
Timo Platt v. MichaanIndeed, Timo's admission as to the reason they represented to tax authorities that Thomas owned the Tiffany…