This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

ICM (D) purchased an apartment building, leased the land, and sold the improvements. D's venture was not going well because the original lease failed. Real estate taxes were due just about the time that D released the land. Goldstick (P) was engaged by D to reduce the taxes on the property. P reduced them by $870,000. D refused to pay P's legal bill of $290,000. D obtained a buyer for the building, but that transaction was contingent on P's release from the legal bill. Several payment plans were offered to P to satisfy the legal bill. All those plans were disapproved because they involved payments over time or payments on contingency of profitability. Kusmursky (D1), the owner of improvements on the land, then assured P that the problem would be worked out if P would release his claim. P released his claim, but no agreement was reached to satisfy the bill. P was never paid. P sued, claiming that he detrimentally relied on D's promise. The court granted a summary judgment for D and P appealed; the trial court held that the promise on which P relied was too ambiguous to invoke promissory estoppel.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.