[brief] Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that he was lulled into a false sense of security by [...].  The New Jersey Supreme Court has held:  The requirements of equitable estoppel are quite exacting.  We have defined equitable estoppel as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed ... as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct, and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse....  In contract actions, equitable estoppel has been used to prevent a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations when the defendant engages in conduct that is calculated to mislead the plaintiff into believing that it is unnecessary to seek civil redress.  Thus, we have recognized that equitable estoppel may be appropriate where “a defendant has lulled a plaintiff into a false sense of security by representing that a claim will be amicably settled without the necessity for litigation. ”  [W.V. Pangborne & Co. v. New Jersey Dep't of Transp., 116 N.J. 543, 553–54 (1989)(citations omitted). ]  “Likewise, estoppel may arise if a defendant wrongfully conceals or withholds information which it has a duty to provide to the plaintiff, thus causing the plaintiff to miss a filing deadline.  However, a plaintiff must act with reasonable diligence once it obtains the information necessary to file its action and cannot invoke equitable tolling if it has the information in sufficient time to comply with the limitations period[.]”  Trinity Church v. Lawson-Bell, 394 N.J. Super. 159, 171–72 (App. Div. 2007)(citation omitted).  In the instant matter, Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that [...] made affirmative representations to lull Plaintiff into a false sense of security.  Instead, the only evidence presented by Plaintiff was Plaintiff’s own testimony (that lacked any specificity whatsoever) that [...] told him on various occasions over several years that he was unable to pay.  During the time period of April 2013 to October 2019, Plaintiff did not provide any evidence that [...] represented to him that Plaintiff would be paid soon thereby obviating the need for filing lawsuit.  Based on [...]’s alleged representations that he was unable to pay, Plaintiff still had the ability to file suit and seek recovery of the loan through a judgment collection process.  The only meeting that Plaintiff testified to with any specificity was a dinner in 2016.  But Plaintiff still had three (3) years left on the statute of limitations to file suit after that meeting.  See Trinity Church, 394 N.J. Super. at 171–72.  Even giving Plaintiff’s testimony every benefit of the doubt, there was no indication that [...] would repay the alleged Third Loan until the October 2019 audio recording, which was already past the six (6) year statute of limitations on the April 2013 demand loan.  Under the trial court’s flawed reasoning, the statute of limitations would be tolled on every unpaid debt simply because the debtor stated he was unable to pay.  Such limited evidence is insufficient to meet the “exacting” standard of equitable estoppel.  W.V. Pangborne, 116 N.J. at 553.  Thus, there is no basis to equitably estop Defendants from asserting a statute of limitations defense.