Commercial Division Blog
Posted: October 29, 2014 / Categories Commercial, Appeals, Court Rules/Procedures
Appellant's Arguments Rejected Based on Judicial Estoppel
On October 21, 2014, the First Department issued a decision in Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Westlb AG, 2014 NY Slip Op. 07092, rejecting arguments made on appeal when the appellants had taken contrary positions at trial.
In Bank Hapoalim, the plaintiffs were "investors in a structured investment vehicle" who sued the defendant financial institutions regarding the investment. In reviewing the trial court's decision the First Department noted as an initial matter that:
[O]n this appeal, plaintiffs are judicially estopped from asserting their position on choice of law, as they consistently argued to the motion court that New York law governed the case and that their arguments relied on New York law. A party may not adopt a position on appeal at odds with its arguments to the trial court, and plaintiffs cite no law to the contrary.
Similarly, plaintiffs are judicially estopped from arguing that the Income Notes should be treated as debt, since they argued repeatedly to the motion court that the Income Notes should be treated as equity. Indeed, plaintiffs concede that they previously argued in favor of the proposition that the notes were equity, but now assert that they may argue that the Income Notes are equity for some purposes and debt for others.
(Internal citations omitted).