In Conquest Cleaning Corp. v. New York City Sch. Constr. Auth. (279 AD2d 546 [2001]) the Appellate Division affirmed the hearing court's order estopping defendant from asserting that the plaintiff failed to timely file a notice of claim. The court noted that during the three-month claim period, defendant's project manager provided plaintiff's president "with payment forms, advised Martinez on how to complete the forms, advised Martinez that the defendant had approved the submitted payment forms, made various requests for copies of additional documentation, and assured Martinez that the payment request had been sent to the defendant. The defendant did not inform Martinez that the payment request had been or would be rejected. Rather, . . . the defendant's manager of industrial hygiene set up a payment meeting with Martinez, directed Martinez to bring additional copies of the payment request documentation, and told Martinez that his payment request would be considered fairly." Under such circumstances, the court found that the conduct of the defendant lulled the plaintiff into sleeping on its rights to its detriment.