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
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OR THE REPEATED, LONG-TERM ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND CONSPIRACY WERE PROPER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S CLOTHES BY A DETECTIVE AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE DEFENDANT WAS BEING TREATED FOR A GUNSHOT WOUND; THE CLOTHES AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CLOTHES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE NECESSARY PARTY CAN BE SUMMONED AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE ACTION CAN CONTINUE IN THE PARTY’S ABSENCE; THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMONING THE NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS RE: WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
BOTH PARENTS ACKNOWLEDGED A CHANGE IN THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS NEEDED, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION (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

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