You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NEVER SERVED, THE CAUSES OF...

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NEVER SERVED, THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT WERE TIMELY INTERPOSED AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPLY THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, held, in a brief memorandum, that the claims were timely asserted in a complaint which was filed but never served. The amended complaint included the same claims. Therefore the relation-back doctrine did not apply. The claims should not have been dismissed under CPLR 306-b because the defendants waived that objection:

… [W]e … conclude that plaintiff’s first and second causes of action should be reinstated. Those claims, asserted in identical form in both the original and amended complaints, were timely interposed when plaintiff filed the original summons and complaint, i.e., “when the action [was] commenced” (see CPLR 203 [c]; 304 [a]). The relation-back doctrine is therefore inapplicable (see CPLR 203 [f]). Although plaintiff failed to serve the original complaint, on this record, the claims should not have been dismissed under CPLR 306-b because defendants did not properly raise such an objection and thus waived it (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]).

From the dissent:

Defendants each moved to dismiss the complaint—referring to the amended complaint—under CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), claiming, amongst other things, that the first and second causes of action are untimely … . Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that these causes of action were timely interposed based on the filing of the unserved complaint. In its reply, the [defendant] requested dismissal of the unserved complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b for lack of service within the statutory time period.

… [P]laintiff responded by filing a motion under CPLR 306-b to extend the time to file the unserved complaint and deem it timely served nunc pro tunc. * * *

Supreme Court,  … denied plaintiff’s CPLR 306-b motion, and … granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed “the complaint” with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed … .. The dispositive point of contention … was whether the first two causes of action were timely … . Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08980, CtApp 12-17-19

 

You might also like
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
THE RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, A POST-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDING MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIAL RECORD; ANY ERROR IN ADMITTING DNA EVIDENCE WHERE CONSENT, NOT IDENTITY, IS THE ISSUE IS HARMLESS (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).
THE DENIAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE WHICH WAS BELOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BUT WAS FOUR FEET HIGHER THAN THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT “IRRATIONAL;” THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
Pregnant Woman Not Liable Under the Reckless Manslaughter Statute for Death of Baby Injured in Utero But Subsequently Delivered Alive by Cesarean Section
PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD HAS STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK CUSTODY/VISITATION.
A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).

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

CPLR 3122 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE COMPTROLLER TO ACQUIRE PATIENT AUTHORIZATIONS... FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WAS HANDLED PROPERLY, THERE WAS NO...