The doctrine of equitable estoppel should not be applied in this case. The purpose of invoking the doctrine is to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another (3 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], ? 533A, at p 798; Imperator Realty Co. v Tull, 228 NY 447, 453). It cannot be said that an "unconscionable" injury to plaintiff has resulted from defendants refusal to execute the lease modification. Plaintiffs allegation that defendants profit motive somehow renders its conduct inequitable would seem to be irrelevant, inasmuch as the concern is for whether defendants conduct has unjustly injured plaintiff. The circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel (see Ginsberg v Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 A.D.2d 318).
