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
INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...