You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE...
,

PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS THE FIRST COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE CERTAIN INTENTIONAL TORTS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT, DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT REQUIRED, CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO COMPLAINTS WAS ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that dismissal of a second complaint arising out of the same facts as the first complaint, filed two months earlier, was not required. Plaintiff had hired new counsel 13 days before the statute of limitations ran out. The first complaint mentioned both intentional and negligent conduct. The second complaint fleshed out specific intentional torts:

CPLR 3211 (a) (4) does not require a trial court to dismiss an action upon the ground that another similar action is pending, instead allowing it to “make such order as justice requires” … . … “[t]he purpose of the defense of the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause is to prevent a party from being harassed or burdened by having to defend a multiplicity of suits” . In our view, the reasons stated by plaintiff for commencing this action rather than moving for leave to amend the first complaint are not…  so clearly inadequate that dismissal was required to serve that purpose … . …

We note that Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff that there was insufficient time to pursue a motion for leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 2214 (b). As the court observed, it was possible that plaintiff could have obtained timely relief by bringing a request for leave to amend the first complaint via an order to show cause … . Nevertheless, even if counsel erred in failing to pursue that course, dismissal of this action is too harsh a consequence.

Where, as here, relief is required under CPLR 3211 (a) (4) to correct similar pending actions, “consolidation or joint trial is permissible and in many instances preferable to dismissal”… . In his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff requested such relief as an alternative remedy. Thus, the requirement for notice to defendant before consolidation is ordered has been satisfied (see CPLR 602 [a] … ). Accordingly, we direct Supreme Court to consolidate this action with the first action, and remit for that purpose. LaBuda v LaBuda, 2019 NY Slip Op 05366, Third Dept 7-3-19

[​Note that it may have been possible for the plaintiff to file a copy of the proposed supplemental summons with a motion to amend the complaint which would have tolled the statute of limitations. (see Karagiannis v North Shore Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 80 AD3d 569, 569 [2d Dept 2011])]

 

You might also like
COUNTY JAIL CORRECTIONS OFFICER ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR PTSD AND DEPRESSION RESULTING FROM AN INMATE’S SPITTING ON HIM AND THREATENING TO KILL HIS FAMILY (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER A PRIOR ELBOW INJURY ADDED TO THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT SHOULDER INJURY; THE BOARD DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION (THIRD DEPT).
MEMBER OF LLC WHICH OWNED A MOBILE HOME PARK IS PERSONALLY LIABLE, PURSUANT TO THE RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICER DOCTRINE, FOR AN $800,000 PENALTY IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIRING SEWAGE-TREATMENT MEASURES (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT ACTOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Proof Insufficient to Demonstrate Will Drafted and Signed a Few Days Before Death Reflected Decedent’s Intentions
“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit
Parole Violators May Apply for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—County Court Properly Denied the Application Based Upon the Nature of Defendant’s Convictions and Serious Prison Infractions
THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD 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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DOCTRINES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA APPLY TO THE ARBITRATOR’S... THE CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH STATED THE AGREED FIREFIGHTER...