Practice point: A party who assumed a certain
position in a prior proceeding and secured a ruling in his or her favor is estopped from advancing a contrary position in another action simply because
his or her interests have changed.
Student note: Sometimes referred to as estoppel against inconsistent positions, the doctrine rests upon the
principle that a litigant should not be permitted to lead a court to
find a fact one way, and then contend in another judicial proceeding that
the same fact should be found otherwise.
Case: Becerril v. City of New York Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, NY Slip Op06783 (1st Dept. 2013).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Successive motions for summary judgment.
