ELMER v. VILLAGE OF HONEOYE FALLS

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The complaint herein was properly dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to commence the action within the 18-month period governing contract actions against a village (CPLR 9802). While it is true that in a proper case a municipality may be estopped from asserting a Statute of Limitations defense ( Bender v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 662, 668; 17 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed], § 49.07, p. 138), plaintiffs produced no proof of affirmative misconduct or misrepresentation by the village which precluded them from bringing their action in a timely manner (cf. Simcuski v Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442; General Stencils v Chiappa, 18 N.Y.2d 125; Dupuis v Van Natten, 61 A.D.2d 293; Robinson v City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 260; Debes v Monroe County Water Auth., 16 A.D.2d 381; Erbe v Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 13 A.D.2d 211, app. dsmd. 11 N.Y.2d 754).