Sheive v. Holley Volunteer Fire Co., 145 A.D.3d 1584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Sheive v. Holley Volunteer Fire Co., 145 A.D.3d 1584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stepanian v. Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Here, we agree with appellants that, contrary to the assertion in plaintiff's motion papers, the relation back doctrine does not apply as between Corporation and Group. "[T]he relation back doctrine allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for [s]tatute of [l]imitations purposes where the two defendants are united in interest" ( Moran v JRM Contr., Inc. , 145 AD3d 1584, 1585 [4th Dept 2016] [emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Associated Gen. Contrs. of NYS, LLC v. New York State Thruway Auth.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
We agree with petitioners that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the petition. "[U]se of the [sua sponte] power of dismissal must be restricted to the most extraordinary circumstances" ( Matter of Sheive v Holley Volunteer Fire Co ., 145 AD3d 1584, 1584 [4th Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cataldo v. Herrmann
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Ctr. v Desina, 64 NY2d 1059 [1985]; New York Inst. of Tech, v Ponte Mgt., 255 AD2d 302, 303 [1998]), or that he was entitled to the application of the relation-back doctrine to render the action timely (see CPLR 203 [c]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995]; see also Moran v JRM Contr., Inc., 145 AD3d 1584, 1585 [2016]; Davis v Sanseverino, 145 AD3d 519, 520 [2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Lauren L. Sheive
v.
Holley Volunteer Fire Company
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 23, 2016.
145 A.D.3d 1584
Carni, Centra, Curran, Nemoyer, Troutman.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (James P. Punch, A.J.), entered February 19, 2015 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment action. The judgment denied and dismissed the petition-complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition-complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: In this hybrid CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment action, petitioner-plaintiff (petitioner) appeals from a judgment denying and dismissing the petition-complaint (petition). We agree with petitioner that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the petition. “ ‘[U]se of the [sua sponte] power of dismissal must be restricted to the most extraordinary circumstances,’ ” and no such extraordinary circumstances are present in this case (CitiMortgage, Inc. v Carter, 140 AD3d 1663, 1663 [2016]; see Oak Hollow Nursing Ctr. v Stumbo, 117 AD3d 698, 699 [2014]; Hurd v Hurd, 66 AD3d 1492, 1493 [2009]; cf. Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207 [1996], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997], reconsideration denied 89 NY2d 1087 [1997]). In sua sponte dismissing the petition, “the court deprived [petitioner] of notice of what was effectively the court’s own motion for summary judgment . . . , thereby depriving [her] of [her] opportunity to lay bare [her] proof . . . and rendering meaningful appellate review of the propriety of the court’s determination on the merits impossible” (Sena v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 198 AD2d 345, 346 [1993]; see Hurd, 66 AD3d at 1493; Abinanti v Pascale, 41 AD3d 395, 396 [2007]; Jacobs v Mostow, 23 AD3d 623, 623-624 [2005]). We therefore reverse the judgment and reinstate the petition.

In light of our determination, we do not address petitioner’s remaining contention.

Present—Centra, J.P., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.