PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CORPORATE DEFENDANT ALLEGED TO BE “UNITED IN INTEREST” WITH A NAMED CORPORATE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation-back doctrine applied to allow adding a defendant after the statute of limitations had run. Plaintiff slipped and fell on some wires in her office and sued a company called Blackbox Corporation (apparently alleging responsibility for the presence of wires). Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add another company, Nu-Vision, alleging it was “united in interest” with Blackbox:

In order to establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) the causes of action arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new party is united in interest with one or more of the original defendants, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant 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 commenced against him or her as well” … .. “The ‘linchpin’ of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period” … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff demonstrated the applicability of the relation-back doctrine. As to the first prong, there is no dispute that the plaintiff sought to allege causes of action against Nu-Vision arising out of the same occurrence as the causes of action asserted in the amended complaint. The plaintiff also established the second prong, that Nu-Vision and Black Box Corporation of Pennsylvania were “united in interest,” by demonstrating that, under the particular circumstances presented, Nu-Vision and Black Box Corporation of Pennsylvania “intentionally or not, often blurred the distinction between them” … . As to the third prong, the plaintiff sufficiently established that Nu-Vision knew or should have known that, but for a mistake, it would have been named as a defendant … .   Tomlinson v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 04973, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was allowed to amend the complaint to add a corporate defendant after the statute of limitations had passed pursuant to the relation-back doctrine. The added defendant was deemed to be “united in interest” with a named corporate defendant.