Dinhofer v Medical Liab. Mut. Ins. Co., 92 AD3d 480 (1st Dept., 2012)
Plaintiff's claims against the MLMIC defendants of fraud, deceitful business practices, and breach of their duty to defend him in good faith are barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The MLMIC defendants established that in reasonable reliance upon plaintiff's execution of the consent to settle the underlying medical malpractice action they made a prejudicial change in their position by, inter alia, disbanding the advisory committee that, pursuant to the policy, would have resolved the matter of settlement absent plaintiff's consent, and paying to settle the claim against him (see River Seafoods, Inc. v JPMorgan Chase Bank, 19 AD3d 120, 122 ). These claims are also barred by the doctrine of ratification, since plaintiff failed to act promptly to seek rescission of the consent (see Matter of Guttenplan, 222 AD2d 255, 257 , lv denied 88 NY2d 812 ), and indeed accepted and retained the benefits of the settlement (see Napolitano v City of New York, 12 AD3d 194 ).