You are here: / / Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended...

Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended Complaint) Explained

The Second Department determined the relation-back doctrine was properly applied to a second amended complaint which otherwise would have been time-barred. The court noted that the mistake in naming the correct party need not be excusable:

A party seeking the benefit of the relation-back doctrine must establish that (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship, can be charged with notice of the institution of the action and will not be prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense on the merits by virtue of the delayed assertion of those claims against him or her, and (3) the new party 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 timely commenced against the new party … . The mistake need not be excusable for the relation-back doctrine to apply … . Castagna v Almaghrabi, 2014 NY Slip Op 03223, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

You might also like
THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER TOPPLED OVER, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE LADDER WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Under the Storm in Progress Rule
Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth Amendment
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE SPECIFIC OR MAXIMUM PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SIGNING OF A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED; RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND BURDENS OF PROOF EXPLAINED.

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

Motion to Disqualify an Attorney Who Had Previously Represented Both Parties... Replevin and Order of Seizure (Asserting a Superior Right to Property) Expl...