You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY...

PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY SUED AS “JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY;” COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint as time-barred, determined plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in identifying the party initially sued as “John Doe Trucking Company” prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations:

Pursuant to CPLR 1024, “[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his [or her] name and identity as is known.” “However, a plaintiff cannot rely on CPLR 1024 unless he or she ‘exercise[s] due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, [is] unable to do so'” … . “Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the ‘Jane Doe’s’ [or ‘John Doe’s’] name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party” … . Additionally, the “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” party must “be described in such form as will fairly apprise the party that she [or he] is the intended defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that it made diligent efforts to ascertain Werner’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … . Further, the description in the amended complaint was insufficient to fairly apprise Werner that it was the intended defendant … . Abrego v Tile World Import Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05661, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Failure to exercise due diligence in identifying a party initially sued as a “John Doe” before the expiration of the statute of limitations will result in dismissal of the complaint.

 

You might also like
No “Special Employee” Relationship
Res Ipsa Loquitur Is Rarely a Basis for Summary Judgment/Questions of Fact About Defendant’s Control of the Instrumentality Causing Injury Precluded Summary Judgment.
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD DID NOT DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
DESCRIPTION OF OFFICE SOUGHT WAS SUFFICIENT, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
Employment Contract Deemed Hiring “At Will”—No Fixed Duration
PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE ORDER OF REFERENCE AND THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE; THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED A PREDICATE SEX OFFENDER BASED UPON A MICHIGAN CONVICTION OF “BREAKING AND ENTERING AN OCCUPIED DWELLING WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE” (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

CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED PARENTAL NEGLECT... IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE...