You are here: / / Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action Should Have Been Allowed to Amend...
, ,

Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action Should Have Been Allowed to Amend His Answer to Add Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to amend his answer by adding the passing of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.  The Second Department explained:

Here, it is undisputed that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to a cause of action alleging wrongful death began to run on August 14, 2007, the date of the decedent’s death (see EPTL 5-4.1), and that the plaintiff commenced the second action, in which Lehman was a named defendant, more than two years after the decedent’s death. Accordingly, Lehman’s proposed affirmative defense of the statute of limitations as to so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for wrongful death was not palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit on its face, and the plaintiff’s contentions regarding the relation back doctrine (see CPLR 203[b]) did not warrant the denial of Lehman’s motion. Consequently, as there was no evidence that the amendment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, the Supreme Court should have granted Lehman’s motion for leave to amend his answer without conducting a further examination into the ultimate merits of the proposed amendment … . “If [the plaintiff] wishes to test the merits of the proposed added . . . defense, [the plaintiff] may later move for summary judgment upon a proper showing” … . Carroll v Motola, 2013 NY Slip Op 05728, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS ACTION FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AFTER A DWI CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COUNTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CODE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN THIS EJECTMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT-TENANT’S “FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,” “WAIVER,” “CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION,” “BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT,” “IMPROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT,” AND “TRESPASS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER IN DEFENDANT MC RAE’S VEHICLE WHEN MC RAE’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND; THE ALLEGATION THAT MC RAE STOPPED FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER MC CRAE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO CROSS CLAIMS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Abuse of a Student by a School Bus Monitor Raised Questions of Fact Re: Negligent Supervision of the Student, Negligent Supervision and Training of the Monitor, and Whether the Monitor Was Acting Within the Scope of Her Employment
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NURSING HOME REFORM ACT (NHRA), THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE NURSING-HOME RESIDENT’S GRANDDAUGHTER DID NOT IMPOSE PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THE GRANDDAUGHTER FOR PAYMENT OF THE COSTS OF THE RESIDENT’S CARE; THE GRANDDAUGHTER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.

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

School District Did Not Owe Special Duty to Plaintiff Injured in Fight After... Wife’s Concealment of Terminal Cancer Did Not Warrant Rescission of Divorce...