You are here: / / Relation-Back Doctrine Allowed Amendment of Complaint After S/L Had Ru...

Relation-Back Doctrine Allowed Amendment of Complaint After S/L Had Run

The Fourth Department determined the relation-back doctrine allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint.  The court noted that the addition of “piercing the corporate veil” allegations in the amended complaint was “of no moment” because no new cause of action was stated thereby:

In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well” … .

Here, we conclude that the first prong of the relation back doctrine test is satisfied because the claims against DelMonte P.C. arise out of the same occurrence as that alleged against DelMonte, doing business as Niagara Chiropractic Office, i.e., Venne’s treatment of plaintiff … .  We further conclude that plaintiffs satisfied the second prong of that test inasmuch as DelMonte P.C. employed Venne and therefore may be held vicariously liable for his conduct … .  We conclude that plaintiffs also satisfied the third prong of that test inasmuch as they established that their failure to include DelMonte P.C. as a defendant in the original or first amended complaint “ ‘was a mistake and not . . . the result of a strategy to obtain a tactical advantage’ ” … .  Nasca… v Delmonte…, 1191, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

You might also like
Meaning of “Passageway” at Work Site Explained
AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD BEGUN WORKING FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT ENTERED HIS PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
WALMART DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER INJURED BY ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER AFTER RESPONDING TO A THEFT AT A WALMART STORE (FOURTH DEPT).
Possible Error of Law Committed by Judge Did Not Warrant a Prohibition Action
UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION AGAIN FOUND THE SEVEN-YEAR PREINDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS PRECLUDED BY FAILURE TO PROVE THE 38-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS MORE THAN 18 YEARS OLD, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY PROOF OF A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH.

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria Not Met for “Special Facts” Exception to Rule that the Zoning Law... Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Against Third-Party Defendant Under Doctrine...