Practice point: Sometimes called the doctrine of inconsistent positions, judidical estoppel precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a favorable judgment from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because that party's interests have changed.
The doctrine is applicable in matrimonial actions, but in this case the Appellate Division held that the defendant was not judicially estopped from seeking an award of maintenance, as the parties were still married at the time the bankruptcy petitions were filed, and the defendant was not required to list any possible future rights to maintenance payments in the bankruptcy petitions, which were filed years before the judgment of divorce was issued.
Case: Canzona v. Canzona, NY Slip Op 06055 (2d Dep't September 21, 2016)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Claims sounding in punitive damages and attorneys' fees.