Gatto v. Smith-Eisenberg, 280 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Gatto v. Smith-Eisenberg, 280 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bernard-Moses v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. (nysupctkings, 2024-02-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard-Moses v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2024 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. ( Gatto v Smith-Eisenberg , 280 AD2d 640, 641 [2d Dept 2001] [emphasis added].) For purposes of the relation back doctrine, the Second Department has further held that parties are not united in interest in circumstances where one defendant may avail itself of a defense not available to the other defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard-Moses v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2024 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. ( Gatto v Smith-Eisenberg , 280 AD2d 640, 641 [2d Dept 2001] [emphasis added].) For purposes of the relation back doctrine, the Second Department has further held that parties are not united in interest in circumstances where one defendant may avail itself of a defense not available to the other defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berkeley v. 89th Jamaica Realty Co., L.P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
To establish that Hong Yu Corp. is united in interest with Sung Yu Corp., the plaintiff had to show that their interest in the subject matter of the action is such that they stand or fall together and that a judgment against one would similarly affect the other (see Gatto v Smith-Eisenberg, 280 AD2d 640, 641 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sadeghinia v. Pierre
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The commencement of the action against Suzanne Ciechalski and those codefendants thus did not mark the date of the interposition of the plaintiff’s negligence claim against A.S. (see CPLR 203 [c]; Gatto v Smith-Eisenberg 280 AD2d 640, 641 [2001]; Gerol v G & H Energy Maintenance Co., 239 AD2d 387 [1997]; Piccinich v Forest City Tech Place Assoc., 234 AD2d 528, 529-530 [1996]; Yovane v White Plains Hosp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Losner v. Cashline, L.P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Co. v Stone, 270 NY 154, 159 [1936]; Gatto v Smith-Eisenberg, 280 AD2d 640, 641 [2001]; Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 40-41 [1981]).
discussed Cited "see" Xavier v. RY Management Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
In a negligence action, “the defenses available to two defendants will be identical, and thus their interests will be united, only where one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other” (Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 45 [1981]; see Gatto v Smith-Eisenberg, 280 AD2d 640, 641 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vincent Gatto
v.
Caren Smith-Eisenberg
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 26, 2001.
280 A.D.2d 640
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 16, 2000, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff and the defendant were involved in an automobile accident on May 31,1994. The defendant was the registered owner and operator of her vehicle. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant’s husband. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the-husband, specifically noting that he was absolved of all liability. The plaintiff then commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 214 on the ground that the Statute of Limitations had expired. The Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that the relation-back doctrine applied.

To establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that a defendant to be added as[*641] a new party is united in interest with the original defendant (see, Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173; Mondello v New York Blood Ctr., 80 NY2d 219; Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266). “Parties are united in interest only where ‘the interest of the parties in the subject-matter is such that they stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other’ ” (Desiderio v Rubin, 234 AD2d 581, 583, quoting Prudential Ins. Co. v Stone, 270 NY 154, 159). Further, parties’ interests are united only where one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other (see, Desiderio v Rubin, supra; Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30).

The defendant was not united in interest with her husband, and therefore, the relation-back doctrine does not apply. As a result, this action is time-barred (see, CPLR 214; see also, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.