Lodge v. D'Aliso, 2 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Lodge v. D'Aliso, 2 A.D.3d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Loehr v. Durand (nyappdiv, 2026-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Loehr v. Durand
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Finally, we deny petitioner ' s request to add the necessary party or parties inasmuch as the statute of limitations has expired ( see generally Matter of Lodge v D ' Aliso , 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karagiannis v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a certain person as a defendant, as the applicable statutes of limitations had expired prior to the determination of the motion (see Comice v Justin’s Rest., 78 AD3d 641 [2010]; Battle v Brookhaven Nursing Home, 7 AD3d 553, 554 [2004]; Matter of Lodge v D’Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cylich v. Riverbay Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Furthermore, joinder cannot be excused since, although petitioners have no other effective remedy if the proceeding is dismissed, the prejudice that could accrue to the individuals not joined is substantial, and petitioners had ample opportunity to avoid this result by taking steps to notify and join those individuals after respondent served its answer pleading the failure to join necessary parties as a defense requiring dismissal (see Matter of Lodge v D’Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwimmer v. Welz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Although we conclude that the corporation is not a necessary party (cf Brown v Brown, 143 AD2d 248, 249 [1988]), the individuals on the Welz Board are necessary parties because, if the court were to find invalid the certificate of amendment naming them as members of the Board, they would lose their positions (see Matter of Lodge v D’Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
NY · 2005 · confidence medium
The dismissal of a proceeding will generally be upheld where the petitioner (1) knew of the necessary party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Matter of Chalian v Malone, 307 AD2d 619, 620 [3d Dept 2003]; Matter of Manupella v Troy City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 272 AD2d 761, 763-764 [3d Dept 2000]; Matter of O’Connell v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of New Scotland, 267 AD2d 742 , 743-744 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 938 [2000]) or (2) failed to offer any adequate excuse for his or her failure to join a necessary party (see Matter of Lodge v D’Aliso,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, its failure to adequately explain why it did not include the landowner, who was subject to the jurisdiction of the court (cf. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]), as a respondent in a timely manner, despite being aware of its identity, precludes it from proceeding in the landowner’s absence (see CPLR 1001 [b]; Matter of East Bayside Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Chin, supra at 371; Matter of Lodge v D’Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2003]; Matter of Chalian v Malone, 307 AD2d 619, 621 [2003]; Matte…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) East Bayside Homeowners Ass'n v. Chin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The petitioners’ failure to adequately explain why they did not include the landowner, who was subject to the jurisdiction of the court (cf. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]), as a respondent in a timely manner, despite being aware of its identity, precludes them from proceeding in the landowner’s absence (see CPLR 1001 [b]; Matter of Lodge v D'Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2003]; Matter of Chalian v Malone, 307 AD2d 619, 621 [2003]; Matter of Bianchi v Town of Greece Planning Bd., 300 AD2d 1043, 1044 [2002]; Matter of Spence v Cah…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Battle v. Brookhaven Nursing Home
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs motion did not toll the statute of limitations as the plaintiff did not file a copy of the proposed supplemental summons and amended complaint with the Supreme Court when she filed her motion (see Matter of Lodge v D'Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]; cf. Perez v Paramount Communications, supra at 754-755).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of John Lodge
v.
Louis S. D'Aliso
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 8, 2003.
2 A.D.3d 525
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to compel the[*526] respondents, Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety and Westchester County, inter alia, to revoke Operations Order No. 02-026, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join necessary parties, denied their cross application to add certain individuals as necessary parties, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A party whose interest may be adversely affected by a potential judgment must be made a party in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Martin v Ronan, 47 NY2d 486 [1979]; Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489 [1995]). In the present case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that those police officers who had already been promoted to the rank of sergeant were necessary parties since, if the petitioners were ultimately successful, those sergeants would lose their promotions. Further, since the applicable statute of limitations had already expired, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioners’ cross application to add those applicants as party respondents (see Matter of Ogbunugafor v New York State Educ. Dept., 279 AD2d 738 [2001]). The cross application did not toll the statute of limitations as the petitioners failed to include a copy of the proposed supplemental notice of petition and petition with their cross application (see Perez v Paramount Communications, 92 NY2d 749 [1999]).

The petitioners’ failure to adequately explain why they did not include the promoted officers as respondents in a timely manner, despite being aware of the officers’ identities, precludes them from proceeding in their absence (see CPLR 1001 [b]; see also Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 245 AD2d 968 [1997]) and from relying on the relation-back doctrine (see Matter of 27th St. Block Assn. v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 302 AD2d 155 [2002]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioners’ remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.