You are here: / / Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended...

Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended Complaint) Explained

The Second Department determined the relation-back doctrine was properly applied to a second amended complaint which otherwise would have been time-barred. The court noted that the mistake in naming the correct party need not be excusable:

A party seeking the benefit of the relation-back doctrine 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 notice of the institution of the action and will not be prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense on the merits by virtue of the delayed assertion of those claims against him or her, 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 timely commenced against the new party … . The mistake need not be excusable for the relation-back doctrine to apply … . Castagna v Almaghrabi, 2014 NY Slip Op 03223, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Reversible Error to Allow Prosecutor to Question Defendant About His Post-Arrest Silence
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT). ​
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN THE HALL OF A SCHOOL AND THE GLASS SHATTERED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND SOME OF THE PANELS IN THE DISPLAY CASE WERE MADE OF SHATTERPROOF PLEXIGLASS; PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES-LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Provision Requiring Nonincumbents to Reside in District Does Not Violate Equal Protection
THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).

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

Motion to Disqualify an Attorney Who Had Previously Represented Both Parties... Replevin and Order of Seizure (Asserting a Superior Right to Property) Expl...