You are here: / / CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST...
,

CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation back doctrine did not apply to an attempt to amend the answer to add a fraud cause of action against Tam, an officer of plaintiff corporation, because Tam and the corporation were not united in interest. Tam had signed the contract at issue as an officer, not in his individual capacity:

” The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional 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 brought against the additional party as well'” … . The original counterclaim asserted against the plaintiff alleged that plaintiff breached contractual obligations for which Tam—an officer of the corporation—was not individually liable … . “There is no legal theory of vicarious liability for breach of contract” by “an agent of a disclosed principal” … . Tam, when signing the contract in issue, did so as president of the plaintiff, and not individually. Therefore, the cross movants are not united in interest. Further, since Tam signed the contract, [defendant] was aware of Tam’s identity at the time the original answer was served. Therefore, failure to join Tam cannot be attributable to a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties … . Thus, the addition of Tam as a party to this action was improper. Roco G.C. Corp. v Bridge View Tower, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08164, Second Dept 11-28-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ( FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/UNITED IN INTEREST  (RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PUBLIC POLICY PRECLUDED RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT OVERPAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Law Office Failure Was Valid Excuse for Default—Answer Deemed Served in Absence of Cross Motion
THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS, AFTER TRIAL FOR AN INJURY WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED; DEFENDANT REQUESTED A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice Suit—Action Time-Barred
IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A FIRE TRUCK DRIVEN BY A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER, THE FIRE DISTRICT CAN BE HELD TO A NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO A RECKLESS DISREGARD, STANDARD PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-B (SECOND DEPT). ​
A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient Showing of a Connection Between Alleged Building Code Violations and the Fall
Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement

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

VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED... DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE...