Kotlyarsky v New York Post o equitable tollingmust present evidence that Ds wrongfully deceived or misled them in order to conceal

the existence of a claim o equitable estoppelmust show due diligence o the doctrines of equitable estoppel and equitable tolling can prevent a defendant from pleading the statue of limitations as a defense where, by fraud, misrepresentation, or deception, he or she has induced the plaintiff to refrain from filing a timely action o equitable estoppel is applicable where the plaintiff knew of the existence of the cause of action, but defendants misconduct caused the plaintiff to delay in brining suit o equitable tollingis applicable where the defendant has wrongfully deceived or misled the plaintiff in order to conceal the existence of a cause of action o a plaintiff seeking to invoke either the doctrines of equitable estoppel or equitable tolling is required to demonstrate that the failure to timely commence the lawsuit is not attributable to a lack of diligence on his or her part o a plaintiff who unreasonably relies on the reassurances of a wrongdoer has not satisfied the obligation of due diligence o A wronged party is held to discover a wrong, and thereby start the statue of limitations running, not upon actual discovery of the other partys wrong, but at the point where the facts could have been ascertained by using reasonable diligence General Stencils, Inc., appellant v. Chiappa o mere ignorance or lack of discovery of the wrong is not sufficient to toll the statue of limitations, which commences running when the wrong is perpetrated Zumpano v Quinn o doctrine of equitable estoppel, applicable where it would be unjust to allow defendant to assert statue of limitations defense, is available where plaintiff (1) was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing timely action, and (2) plaintiffs reliance on defendants misrepresentations was reasonable o it is fundamental to application of equitable estoppel for plaintiffs, whose claims are otherwise time-barred, to establish that subsequent and specific actions by defendat somehow kept them from timely bringing suit o finding that equitable estopple did not apply because plaintiffs had adequate knowledge of the facts and circumstances

o o o

o o

underlying their claims and had sufficient time to inquire and discover the relevant facts before the statue of limitations expired plaintifss had personal knowledge of the relevant facts yet failed to timely pursue their claims a wrongdoer is not legally obliged to make a public confession, or to alert people who may have claims against it, to get the benefit of a statue of limitations where concealment without actual misrepresentation is claimed to have prevented a plaintiff from commencing a timely action, the plaintiff must demonstrate a fiduciary relationshipwhich gave the defendant an obligation to inform him or her of facts underlying the claim due diligence on the part of a plaintiff in bringing the action is an essential element of equitable estoppel. If a plaintiff possesses sufficient knowledge of the possible existence of a claim, he or she is under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts before the statue of limitations expires by due diligence, the Court means that as soon as the plaintiff learns of the misrepresentation, plaintiff must seek to bring an action against defendant a fiduciary relationship exists between two person when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation whether or not a fiduciary relationship existed, coupled with whether or not the defendants were actively concealing abuse, are central to determining whether or not plaintiffs are prevented from pursuing claims against defendants Plaintiffs should not be barred from pursuing their claims if defendants had a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiffs, and misrepresentations and concealment are shown to be the reason for the delay in pursuing their claims