You are here: / / MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX...

MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the County’s motion to amend its answer to assert a statute of limitations defense, six years after the initial answer was served, should have been denied:

The County waived a defense based on the statute of limitations by not raising that defense in its answer … . Nevertheless, defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can be interposed in an answer amended by leave of the court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . ” In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . ” A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed'” … . ” In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated [and] whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered'” … . ” [W]here the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discrete, circumspect, prudent and cautious'” … .

We agree with the plaintiffs that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the County’s motion for leave to amend its answer to assert the statute of limitations as a defense and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred … . The County’s motion was not made until approximately six years after service of its answer, after the parties had completed discovery, and after the note of issue had been filed. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs have suffered significant prejudice from the County’s delay in asserting the statute of limitations as a defense … . Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 2016 NY Slip Op 08038, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/ANSWER, MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

You might also like
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT REQUIRED A HOMEOWNER TO TAKE DOWN A FENCE; HOWEVER THE AUTHORITY FOR THE HEAVY FINE (OVER $35,000) WAS NOT VALID PURSUANT TO THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND METHODS OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK (SECOND DEPT).
AN ORDER TO EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A MANNER WHICH CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH PRECLUDES PERSONAL JURISDICTION; PETITIONER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL A NON-SLIP FLOOR OR A GRAB BAR IN A SHOWER STALL; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE AND NUMEROUS OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College
NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF, A MALE EMT, ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND SEVERAL FEMALE EMT’S WERE INVOLVED IN COMPARABLE ACCIDENTS BUT WERE NOT TERMINATED; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (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

FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT,... CIVIL MATTER PROPERLY STAYED UNTIL RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER RESOLVED, DISCRETIONARY...