holding laches is "invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and A-4751-18 3 unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party . . . and the prejudiced party acted in good faith believing that the right h ad been abandoned."
How later courts described this case
- holding laches is "invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and A-4751-18 3 unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party . . . and the prejudiced party acted in good faith believing that the right h ad been abandoned."
- holding that defendant's failure to act on the lack of an affidavit of merit for fourteen months following the filing deadline warranted a rejection of defendant's attempt to enforce the deadline through the application of estoppel and laches
- holding that equitable estoppel and laches barred the granting of motion to dismiss for failure to file a timely affidavit where the defendant waited 14 months to file the motion, during which time the parties engaged in extensive discovery
- stating that equitable estoppel requires a showing that a party "engaged in conduct, either intentionally or under circumstances that induced reliance, and that [the other party] acted or changed [its] position to their detriment."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Amgro, Inc. v. Lincoln General Insurance, 361 F. App'x 338 (2010)
See id. Therefore, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable.
The opinion
Justice LONG,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. Plainly, reinstatement of the complaint is warranted. However, I stand by the *183 opinion I expressed in Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assoc., 178 N.J. 144 , 836 A.2d 779 (2003) (Long, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), underscoring what I view as the shortcomings of the proposed accelerated case management methodology.
Justice ZAZZALI and Judge PRESSLER join in this opinion.
For reversing and remanding — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and Judge PRESSLER (temporarily assigned) — 7.
Concurring and dissenting — Justices LONG, ZAZZALI and Judge PRESSLER (temporarily assigned) — 3.