You are here: / / Relation Back Doctrine Applied to Causes of Action Otherwise Time-Barr...

Relation Back Doctrine Applied to Causes of Action Otherwise Time-Barred

The Third Department applied the “relation back” doctrine (see CPLR 203(f)) to allow the amendment of a complaint to include causes of action that otherwise would have been time-barred.  US Bank National Association vs Gestetner, et al, 514808 Third Dept. 2-14-13

 

You might also like
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND (2) PLAINTIFF, AS A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL REPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT; STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT NOT MET.
Defendant’s “Agency” Defense to a Drug Sale Addressed Under a “Weight of the Evidence” Review (Defense Was Disproved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)
DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED.
Persons Who Deliver Gannett Newspapers Are Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits Notwithstanding the “Independent Contractor” Designation in the Operating Agreements
SPECIAL FUND LIABLE FOR CLAIM MADE AFTER THE 2014 CUTOFF FOR NEWLY REOPENED CLAIMS, DECEDENT’S CLAIM WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND IN 2002 AND HIS DEATH WAS CAUSALLY RELATED TO THE 2002 CLAIM.
DEFENDANT WAS 16 AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND WAS CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER IN 2012; THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED IN 2014; PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BROUGHT IN 2022 IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS AND THE MATTER IS NOW REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Jury’s Finding that the Defendant Was Negligent but that the Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—Motion to Set Aside the Verdict Should Have Been Granted—New Trial Ordered
THIRD DEPT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses in Quasi-Judicial Administrative Hearing Fee Agreement Unenforceable as Vague.