You are here: / / “Relation-Back” Doctrine Applied Where City Mistakenly Not...

“Relation-Back” Doctrine Applied Where City Mistakenly Not Named in the Complaint and Statute of Limitations Had Run

The Second Department determined the amended complaint against the city should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff tripped and fell on the Brooklyn Bridge.  Plaintiff’s notice of claim named the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) and the city.  However, when the plaintiff commenced an action, only the DOT was named in the complaint.  The city moved to dismiss after the statute of limitations had run.  The Second Department held that the “relation-back” doctrine applied and the city was compelled to accept the amended complaint.  In explaining the “relation-back” doctrine, the court wrote:

Although the statute of limitations had expired on the cause of action insofar as asserted against the City, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a basis for application of the relation back doctrine (see CPLR 203[b]…). In order for claims against one defendant to relate back to claims asserted against another, a plaintiff must establish that ” (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that the new party will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits by the delayed, otherwise stale, commencement and (3) the new 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 that party as well'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s claim against the City and the claim against the DOT arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, and the City is united in interest with the DOT such that it can be charged with notice of the action commenced by the plaintiff against the DOT … . Moreover, no prejudice can be asserted by the City, given that a notice of claim was timely served upon both the City and the DOT, and the City proceeded to negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff further demonstrated that her initial failure to name the City as a defendant was a mistake, rather than an intentional decision not to assert the claim in order to gain a tactical advantage… . Headley v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01717, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Concerted Action Liability” Causes of Action Dismissed/No Evidence Media Defendants Conspired with the Police to Use Excessive Force During Filmed Execution of Search Warrant
HERE PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTERING AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO THE TIME FOR ANSWERING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Serve In Manner Stated in Order to Show Cause Is a Jurisdictional Defect.

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

No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the Def... Attorney’s Suit to Recover Fee Dismissed/Failure to Provide Client Notice...