Foundation for Evidence - Judicial Estoppel
“Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.”[1] It is a well-settled principle of law in this State that a party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.[2] “Invocation of the doctrine of estoppel is required in such circumstances lest a mockery be made of the search for truth.”[3]
Judicial estoppel also prevents a party from asserting a factual position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken by the same party in a prior legal proceeding. [4] This principle precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding, and who secured a judgment or order in his or her favor, from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.[5] The doctrine is limited to only those instances where the party (1) advanced an inconsistent factual position in a prior legal proceeding, and (2) secured a favorable judgment as a result of the inconsistent position.[6]
[1] Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193, 707 N.Y.S.2d 11 (2000) (quoting from Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5, affd 94 NY2d 87)
[2] See Matter of Martin v CA. Prods. Co., 8 NY2d 226, 231; Houghton v Thomas, 220 App.Div 415, 423, affd 248 NY 523.
[3] Karasik v Bird, 104 AD2d 758.
[4] See Bates v Long Island R.R. Co., 997 F2d 1028 [2d Cir], cert denied 510 US 992 [1993]
[5] See Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d 435 [2d Dept 1995].
[6] BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. v Chase Manhattan Bank, 298 AD2d 167 [1st Dept 2002]; Bono v. Cucinella, 298 A.D.2d 483, 484, 748 N.Y.S.2d 610, 611[2d Dept 2002). (The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from framing his pleadings in a manner inconsistent with a position taken in a prior judicial proceeding. However, the doctrine will be applied only “where a party to an action has secured a judgment in his or her favor by adopting a certain position and then has sought to assume a contrary position in another action simply because his [or her] interests have changed”).
“Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.”[1] It is a well-settled principle of law in this State that a party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.[2] “Invocation of the doctrine of estoppel is required in such circumstances lest a mockery be made of the search for truth.”[3]
Judicial estoppel also prevents a party from asserting a factual position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken by the same party in a prior legal proceeding. [4] This principle precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding, and who secured a judgment or order in his or her favor, from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.[5] The doctrine is limited to only those instances where the party (1) advanced an inconsistent factual position in a prior legal proceeding, and (2) secured a favorable judgment as a result of the inconsistent position.[6]
[1] Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193, 707 N.Y.S.2d 11 (2000) (quoting from Maas v Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, 5, affd 94 NY2d 87)
[2] See Matter of Martin v CA. Prods. Co., 8 NY2d 226, 231; Houghton v Thomas, 220 App.Div 415, 423, affd 248 NY 523.
[3] Karasik v Bird, 104 AD2d 758.
[4] See Bates v Long Island R.R. Co., 997 F2d 1028 [2d Cir], cert denied 510 US 992 [1993]
[5] See Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d 435 [2d Dept 1995].
[6] BNP Paribas (Suisse) S.A. v Chase Manhattan Bank, 298 AD2d 167 [1st Dept 2002]; Bono v. Cucinella, 298 A.D.2d 483, 484, 748 N.Y.S.2d 610, 611[2d Dept 2002). (The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from framing his pleadings in a manner inconsistent with a position taken in a prior judicial proceeding. However, the doctrine will be applied only “where a party to an action has secured a judgment in his or her favor by adopting a certain position and then has sought to assume a contrary position in another action simply because his [or her] interests have changed”).
The material on our website is from the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case. It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial. There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. publishes The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
|
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306. Telephone (954) 564-9883. email to:divorce@ix.netcom.com. Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation which is owned and operated by
Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. |
This website is published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters), and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.
|