You are here: / / Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant...

Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant Limited Liability Company, the Corporation and Limited Liability Were Not Shown to Be “United in Interest” Such that the “Relation-Back” Doctrine Would Apply to Allow Adding the Corporation as a Defendant After the Statute of Limitations Had Run

The Second Department determined plaintiffs were not entitled to amend the complaint to add a party after the statute of limitations had passed pursuant to the “relation-back” doctrine. Although the president of the party to be added, Madjek, Inc., was a member of Madjek, LLC, (a named defendant), that relationship alone was not enough to demonstrate Madjek, LLC, and Madjek, Inc. were “united in interest” such that one would be vicariously liable for the acts of the other. The court explained the “relation-back” and “united in interest” criteria:

To establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff is required to prove that: (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new defendant is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the commencement of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiffs as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against it as well (see CPLR 203[b] …). Once a defendant has demonstrated that the statute of limitations has expired, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine … .

While it is undisputed that the first prong of the test has been satisfied here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Madjek defendants are united in interest. Defendants are united in interest only when their interest “in the subject-matter [of the action] is such that [the defendants] stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Defendants are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a different defense than the original party … . Here, the only fact that the plaintiffs established in support of their contention that the Madjek defendants were united in interest was that the president of Madjek, Inc., was a member of Madjek, LLC. This fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that the Madjek defendants are vicariously liable for the acts of each other and, thus, is insufficient to establish that the Madjek defendants are united in interest … . Montalvo v Madjek, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06661, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

You might also like
THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENT’S CUSTODY AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-CONTRACTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE VALUE OF THE WORK PRECLUDED RECOVERY UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND UNDER A QUANTUM MERUIT THEORY; CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT OF A COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO TRIAL PROOF DESCRIBED.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Has No Power to Add to Terms of Remittitur
SURVIVING PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT TIMELY MOVE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021, ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative... Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate...