YASSIN v. SARABU

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The doctrine of estoppel will be applied against governmental agencies only in exceptional cases (see, Zaimand v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 555). A municipality may be estopped from asserting that a claim was untimely filed when its improper conduct induced reliance by a plaintiff who changed his or her position to his or her detriment (see, Matter of Griffith v. Staten Is. Rapid Transp. Operating Auth., 269 A.D.2d 596, 597; Bender v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662).

Here, the conduct of the defendant Westchester County Health Care Corporation did not warrant the application of the doctrine of estoppel (see, Matter of Quintero v. Town of Babylon Indus. Dev. Agency, 172 A.D.2d 527). Only a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or similar affirmative misconduct, along with reasonable reliance thereon, will justify the imposition of estoppel (see, DeGori v. Long Is. R. R., 202 A.D.2d 549; Gallo v. County of Westchester, 162 A.D.2d 584; Graber v. City of New York, 89 A.D.2d 598). Accordingly, the motion should have been granted.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.