You are here: / / FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE...
, , ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord-tenant relationship between the insured and the defendant building owner, Marion, did not constitute a “unity of interest” such that a negligence action against Marion could be commenced after the statute of limitations had run:

There are three conditions that must be satisfied for a claim asserted against a subsequent defendant such as Marion to relate back to claims asserted against another defendant: (1) both claims must arise out of the same conduct, occurrence, or transaction; (2) the new party must be “united in interest” with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the lawsuit such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; 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 brought against him as well … . * * *

… [A] landlord-tenant relationship, standing alone, does not give rise to vicarious liability or otherwise create unity of interest, which, as the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, requires a situation in which the parties “stand or fall together and the judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Kingstone Ins. Co. v Marion Pharm. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00805, First Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: A landlord and a tenant are not united in interest for purposes of the relation-back doctrine and will not support adding a landlord to a complaint after the statute of limitations has run.

 

You might also like
INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.
A CORPORATION (HERE A COOPERATIVE) DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS; THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS BUT NO ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY BOARD MEMBERS WERE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE COURT TOOK SIX MONTHS TO HOLD A POST-DISPOSITIONAL HEARING AFTER A FAILED TRIAL DISCHARGE OF THE CHILDREN TO FATHER; THE CHILDREN WERE FINALLY RETURNED TO FATHER AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PERSISTENT ABUSE STATUTE ENCOMPASSES THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF SEXUAL CONTACT; THE INDICTMENT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC GENRE OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED; THE INDICTMENT THEREFORE DID NOT PROVIDE FAIR NOTICE OF THE ACCUSATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE WERE HELPING THE COMPLAINANT PROCURE A U VISA WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COMPLAINANT TO STAY IN THE US AND APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE WAS BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE; U VISAS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALIENS WHO SUFFER ABUSE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION BOND PRECLUDED RECOVERY UNDER THE BOND FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAYS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST 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

THE ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A SENTENCING MISTAKE IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE... A RETROCESSIONAL INSURER WHICH PAID OUT A SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED...