You are here: / / IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION,...
,

IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint adding defendant security company, MAS, after the statute of limitations had expired, should have been granted. Plaintiff was punched in a bar owned by defendant B&M. Plaintiff sued the bar alleging inadequate security, The bar then sued MAS, which provided security for the bar. MAS, therefore, was involved in the litigation as a third-party defendant before the statute of limitations expired:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to serve and file a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding MAS as a direct defendant. “In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . “Delay alone is insufficient to bar an amendment to the pleading; [i]t must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side” … .

Here, … the three-year statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiff’s cause of action alleging negligence (see CPLR 214[5]) had expired by the time that the plaintiff moved … for leave to serve and file a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding MAS as a direct defendant, whether the amendment may be allowed depends upon whether the relation-back doctrine applies (see CPLR 203[f] …), with the burden being on the plaintiff to establish that the doctrine applies … . B & M’s third-party complaint and the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence … . Also, there is no dispute that MAS was “a participant in the litigation” … . Moreover, “[t]he proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit, and there was no prejudice to [MAS] in allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add it as a direct defendant” … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate that MAS and B & M were united in interest since the record demonstrates that MAS had actual notice of the plaintiff’s potential cause of action against it within the applicable limitations period and was a third-party defendant in the action … . Egelandsdal v Massaro, 2025 NY Slip Op 06156, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for the application of the “relation back” theory which allows suit after the statute of limitations has run. Here in this bar-fight “inadequate security” action against defendant bar, the bar had timely sued its security company as a third-party defendant. Because the security company was already involved in the litigation, and because the complaint against the bar and the security company arose out of the same conduct, the “relation back” criteria of CPLR 203(f) were met and plaintiff should have been allowed to sue the security company directly after the statute of limitations had expired.​

 

You might also like
TRIAL JUDGE’S HANDLING OF JURY NOTES CONSTITUTED A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, REVERSAL REQUIRED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE BANK; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON MOTHER’S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT, THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FACT THAT MOTHER HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS SUPPORTED BY A SWORN DENIAL OF SERVICE AND SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury
Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted by New York Constitution and State Law
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

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

DEFENDANTS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR... ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A “NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT” DEMONSTRATING...