WILLIAMS v. FEIG

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant met her initial burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1066; Khaghan v Rye Town Park Commn., 8 AD3d 447) as to the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellant should be equitably estopped from asserting as defenses both the statute of limitations ( see Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 673; Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 449) and the statute of frauds ( see generally McKinley v Hessen, 202 NY 24, 29-30; Greene v First Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. of Rochester, 122 AD2d 593, 594; St. Paul Indus. Park v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 63 AD2d 822, 823; Fletcher v Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 197 App Div 484, 488).