You are here: / / HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT...
,

HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation-back doctrine should have been applied to add a defendant, Design, to the law suit. The CEO of Design, Eisenbach, had been timely sued but the action was discontinued based upon misrepresentations made to plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of Eisenbach. Because of that unusual circumstance, based on the unity of interest between Design and its CEO, Eisenbach, plaintiff should have been allowed to add Design as a defendant after the statute of limitations had run for all parties (including Eisenbach):

These appeals involve the application of the relation-back doctrine to an unusual set of facts. Here, the plaintiffs seek to interpose untimely claims against a proposed corporate defendant by relating those claims back under CPLR 203(c) and (f) to an individual defendant who had been timely sued, discontinued from the action before the statute of limitations had run, and re-added as a defendant after the applicable statute of limitations had expired for all parties. Normally, the relation-back doctrine may only be applied when the party being added relates back to another party which has already been timely sued and which is a continuing defendant in the case. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, where no party objected to, raised any contentions concerning, or appealed the granting of leave to re-add the previously discontinued individual as a party defendant, the relation-back doctrine may be applied. * * *

… [T]here is a fair reading of the record that had Eisenbach not been discontinued from the action based upon inaccurate representations, Design’s role at the construction site would have been revealed and an action timely commenced against it. Further, with Eisenbach named as an original defendant in the action, Design knew or should have known that but for a mistake as to the identity of the parties, it would have been named as a party defendant as well. Bisono v Mist Enters., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03873, Second Dept 7-24-24

Practice Point: Usually the relation-back doctrine can be applied only to add a party with a unity of interest with a timely sued defendant. Here, although the defendant had been timely sued, the action had been discontinued based upon misrepresentations made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Under that unique circumstance, the relation-back doctrine was deemed available to the plaintiff.

 

​

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER DID NOT SPECIFY AN AGENT FOR SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE FAMILY COURT ACT; THEREFORE SERVICE OF MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AT FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN STEMMING FROM THE SHOOTING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT BY HER LIVE-IN COMPANION, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOWN AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence of General Inspection Practices, As Opposed to the Specific Inspection and Cleaning Practices Re: Where the Plaintiff Slipped and Fell, Insufficient to Entitle Defendant to Summary Judgment
ABSENT SELF-INTEREST OR SELF-DEALING, AN ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE LIABLE TO A THIRD PERSON FOR INDUCING THE CLIENT TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH THAT THIRD PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).
Dismissal of Indictment On Ground that Law Enforcement Personnel Improperly Issued a Subpoena for Defendant’s Financial Records Reversed/Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Challenge the Subpoena and Issuance of the Subpoena Did Not Violate Defendant’s Constitutional Rights
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE OFFICER DEFENDANT PUNCHED WAS ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE ‘HEAVIER BURDEN’ IN THE DEFINITION OF ‘LAWFUL DUTY’ PROVIDED TO THE JURY WITHOUT OBJECTION, DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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

PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF CREDIBILITY ISSUES CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE... PLAINTIFF, IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SEXUAL ABUSE ACTION, PROPERLY ASSERTED...