You are here: / / THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING...
,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the relation-back doctrine did not save the petition challenging a use variance. The initial petition was dismissed for failure to name a necessary party, Rosa Kuehn. The subsequent amended petition, which included the necessary party, was dismissed as time-barred:

Supreme Court correctly determined that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine. That doctrine “permits a petitioner to amend a petition to add a respondent even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the petitioner can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added respondent is united in interest with a previously named respondent, and (3) that the later-added respondent knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by petitioners as to the later-added respondent’s identity, the proceeding would have also been brought against him or her” … .

… [P]etitioners simply cannot meet the third and final condition and therefore cannot avail themselves of the doctrine. Indeed, Rosa Kuehn was appropriately named as a respondent and identified as the landowner of the subject property in petitioners’ successful challenge to the use variance issued in 2013 … ; “thus, this simply is not an instance where the identity of a respondent . . . was in doubt or there was some question regarding that party’s status” … . Matter of Nemeth v K-Tooling, 2022 NY Slip Op 03034, Third Department 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here a necessary party was not named in the petition and the petition was dismissed for that reason. The amended petition, which named the necessary party, was time-barred. The relation-back doctrine could not be invoked to save the amended petition because the identity of the necessary party was known to the petitioners who had named her in a related petition in 2013.

 

You might also like
A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Evidence of Loss Based Upon Interference with Property Owner’s Ability to Extract Gas by Hydrofracking Disallowed as Speculative
A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO SET UP A VISITATION SCHEDULE TO THE CHILD AND MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).
Contract Action Barred by Statute of Frauds Did Not Preclude Action Based Upon Quantum Meruit
MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.
Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED CONTINUOUS SEASONAL USE OF A TRAIL WHICH CROSSED OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF’S LAND (TO GO AROUND TWO OBSTACLES) FOR 20 YEARS, DEFENDANT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE TWO CROSS-OVER PORTIONS OF THE TRAIL (THIRD DEPT).

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

DEFENDANT’S UNTIMELY ANSWER WAS REJECTED BY PLAINTIFF BUT PLAINTIFF DEEMED... WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION CAN SERVE AS A PREDICATE FOR...