relation-back doctrine in New York

2026Application of the relation back doctrine under CPLR 203(f) and Buran v Coupal ( 87 NY2d 173 [1995]) should also be addressed on the merits and upon a fuller record.

2026Moreover, the plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of establishing the applicability of the relation-back doctrine to any of the proposed amendments ( see Buran v Coupal , 87 NY2d 173, 177-178 ; Cedarwood Assoc., LLC v County of Nassau , 211 AD3d 799, 800 ).

2024The Court of Appeals has adopted a three-part test for applying the relation back doctrine to add or change defendants: "'(1) both claims arose out of same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been br

2020A plaintiff must establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine by demonstrating that (1) the causes of action arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new party is united in interest with one or more of the original defendants, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining his of her defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action w

2020Given that petitioner was aware of the County respondents' existence and "failed to appreciate that [they] were legally required to be named in proceedings of this type" ( Matter of Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v Town of Liberty , 121 AD3d 1474, 1476 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), petitioner's reliance on the relation back doctrine is unavailing ( see Mongardi v BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. , 45 AD3d 1149, 1151 [2007]; Matter of Baker v Town of Roxbury , 220 AD2d 961, 963-964 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 807 [1996]).

2015In this regard, the relation back doctrine permits a plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a defendant even though the statute of limitations had expired at the time of amendment so long as three requirements are met: “(1) both claims must arise out of the same occurrence, (2) [the] defendant and [the new party] were united in interest, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) [the new party] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [the] plain

2023The Appellate Division decision below is the latest in a line of cases interpreting Buran as limiting the relation back doctrine to mistakes regarding the identity or status of a proper party (see Matter of Nemeth, 205 AD3d at 1094-1095, citing, inter alia, Matter of Sullivan v Planning Bd. of the Town of Mamakating, 151 AD3d 1518, 1520 [3d Dept 2017]; Branch v Community Coll. of the County of Sullivan, 148 AD3d 1410 , 1411-1412 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v Town of Liberty, 121 AD3d 1474, 1476 [3d Dept 2014]).

2020Given that petitioner was aware of the County respondents' existence and "failed to appreciate that [they] were legally required to be named in proceedings of this type" ( Matter of Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v Town of Liberty , 121 AD3d 1474, 1476 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), petitioner's reliance on the relation back doctrine is unavailing ( see Mongardi v BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. , 45 AD3d 1149, 1151 [2007]; Matter of Baker v Town of Roxbury , 220 AD2d 961, 963-964 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 807 [1996]).

2025In order for an otherwise untimely complaint to survive dismissal pursuant to the relation back doctrine, a plaintiff must show: “(1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence; (2) the new party is ‘united in interest’ with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that they will not be prejudiced in maintaining their defense on the merits; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the ac

2024Although there is no dispute that the original action, filed on April 23, 2021, was commenced within the three-year statute of limitations for negligence claims seeking damages for injury to property ( see CPLR 214[4]), it is plaintiff's burden to prove that the relation-back doctrine applied to the addition of defendant Marion after the expiration of that limitations period ( see Cintron v Lynn , 306 AD2d 118, 119-120 [1st Dept 2003]). [FN1] There are three conditions that must be satisfied for a claim asserted against a subsequent defendant such as Marion to relate back to claims asserted ag

2024Because SCA was served with a notice of claim, the Court agrees with plaintiff as to the third prong of the relation-back test, which is met ( see Nardi v Hirsh, 245 AD2d 205 , 206 [1st Dept 1997][relation back-doctrine applicable where party received timely notice of claim]; see also DeLuca v Baybridge at Bayside Condominium I , 5 AD3d 533, 535 [2d Dept 2004]).

2024Because SCA was served with a notice of claim, the Court agrees with plaintiff as to the third prong of the relation-back test, which is met ( see Nardi v Hirsh, 245 AD2d 205 , 206 [1st Dept 1997][relation back-doctrine applicable where party received timely notice of claim]; see also DeLuca v Baybridge at Bayside Condominium I , 5 AD3d 533, 535 [2d Dept 2004]).

2024To establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that a defendant to be added as 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 ).

2024To establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that a defendant to be added as 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 ).

2017Ctr., 264 AD2d 702, 703-704 [1999]).

2002Ctr., 264 AD2d 702, 703 ). “[T]he ‘linchpin’ of the relation back doctrine [is] notice to the defendant within the applicable limitations period” (Buran v Coupal, supra at 180 ; see, Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273, 275 ; Piccinich v Forest City Tech Place Assoc., 234 AD2d 528, 530 ).

2023The Appellate Division decision below is the latest in a line of cases interpreting Buran as limiting the relation back doctrine to mistakes regarding the identity or status of a proper party (see Matter of Nemeth, 205 AD3d at 1094-1095, citing, inter alia, Matter of Sullivan v Planning Bd. of the Town of Mamakating, 151 AD3d 1518, 1520 [3d Dept 2017]; Branch v Community Coll. of the County of Sullivan, 148 AD3d 1410 , 1411-1412 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v Town of Liberty, 121 AD3d 1474, 1476 [3d Dept 2014]).

2022Under the established law of this state, any "mistake" here would "not [be one] contemplated by the relation back doctrine" ( Matter of Sullivan v Planning Bd. of the Town of Mamakating , 151 AD3d at 1520 ; see Matter of Sullivan County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., Inc. v New York State Pub.

2024The Court's research has turned up only one case arising under the circumstances present here; that is, one case in which the plaintiff brought separate actions in both the Court of Claims and supreme court, then sought to apply the relation back doctrine to avoid a statute of limitations dismissal in the supreme court action ( see Cardamone v Ricotta , 47 AD3d 659 [2d Dept 2008]).

2024Ultimately, the Second Department found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the three-part relation back test ( id. at 660-661 ).

2023Buran concluded that the “excusability” requirement “improperly deemphasized what the United States Supreme Court has called the ‘linchpin’ of the relation back doctrine—notice to the defendant within the applicable limitations period” (id. at 180, quoting Schiavone v Fortune, 477 US 21, 31 [1986]).

2007Such a requirement certainly would not bear on “what the United States Supreme Court has called the ‘linchpin’ of the relation back doctrine—notice to the defendant within the applicable limitations period” (Buran, 87 NY2d at 180 , quoting Schiavone v Fortune, 477 US 21, 31 [1986]).

2018Given these facts, we find that the individual trustees "knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against [them] in the absence of [defendant's] mistake" and, therefore, find that defendant established its entitlement to the benefit of the relation back doctrine ( De Sanna v Rockefeller Ctr., Inc. , 9 AD3d at 599 ; see Buran v Coupal , 87 NY2d at 182 ).

2006Nor are we persuaded that plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine, which requires, among other things, that the new party, i.e., Rao, knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiffs as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him or her as well (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178 [1995]; De Sanna v Rockefeller Ctr., Inc., 9 AD3d 596, 598 [2004]).

2026Ctr.</i>, 60 AD3d 981, 982 , citing <i>Buran v Coupal</i>, 87 NY2d at 180 ).</p> <p>Here, the plaintiffs satisfied the first prong of the three-prong test by demonstrating that the causes of action against the Sullivan defendants and the Ramapo defendants arose out of the same occurrence as the causes of action against the medical center (<i>see</i> <i>Rivera v Wyckoff Hgts.

2024NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2024 Ctr., 60 AD3d 981, 983 [2d Dept 2009] [“plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the relation-back doctrine test”]).

2024The doctrine thus gives courts the "sound judicial discretion" ( Duffy, 66 NY2d at 477 ) to identify cases "that justify relaxation of limitations strictures . . . to facilitate decisions on the merits" if the correction will not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff's adversary (Lewis, The Excessive History of Federal Rule 15 (c) and Its Lessons for Civil Rules Revision, 85 Mich L Rev 1507, 1512 [1987]). ( Id . at 177-178.) In the Buran decision relied upon by Plaintiff, the Court of Appeals expounded the contours of the relation back doctrine as follows, setting forth a tripartite test to b

2024The doctrine thus gives courts the "sound judicial discretion" ( Duffy, 66 NY2d at 477 ) to identify cases "that justify relaxation of limitations strictures . . . to facilitate decisions on the merits" if the correction will not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff's adversary (Lewis, The Excessive History of Federal Rule 15 (c) and Its Lessons for Civil Rules Revision, 85 Mich L Rev 1507, 1512 [1987]). ( Id . at 177-178.) In the Buran decision relied upon by Plaintiff, the Court of Appeals expounded the contours of the relation back doctrine as follows, setting forth a tripartite test to b

2024It follows from the foregoing that in an action to recover for the torts of negligence or malpractice 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 [2d Dept 1981] [emphasis added].) Since Plaintiff Does Not Satisfy the Second Prong Of the Relation Back Doctrine — "United in Interest" — She Does Not Fall Within the Scope of the Relation Back Doctrine, Requiring Denial of Her Motion to Amend the Summons and Complaint Based on the Second Depart

2024As held by the Second Department in articulating the rationale underlying its determination that two entities were not united in interest for purposes of the second prong of the relation back doctrine: "In short, 'interests will be united, only where one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other' ( Connell v Hayden, supra, at 45 )" ( Desiderio v Rubin , 234 AD2d at 583 [2d Dept 1996]).

2023In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a petitioner is required to establish that "(1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the [petitioner] as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought again

2023The burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact whether the relation back doctrine applied ( see Marcotrigiano v Dental Specialty Assoc., P.C. , 209 AD3d 850, 851 [2d Dept 2022]; see generally Stepanian v Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Inc. , 207 AD3d 1182, 1183 [4th Dept 2022]; Kulback's Inc. v Buffalo State Ventures, LLC , 197 AD3d 890, 891 [4th Dept 2021]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Brown , 186 AD3d 1038, 1039 [4th Dept 2020]). " 'In order for a claim asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claim was filed against another defendant, the plaintiff[ ] must establish that (1

2023We conclude that the relation back doctrine does not apply here inasmuch as petitioners' error was a mistake of law not encompassed by the doctrine ( see Windy Ridge Farm v Assessor of Town of Shandaken , 45 AD3d 1099, 1099-1100 [3d Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 725 [2008]; Doe v HMO-CNY , 14 AD3d 102, 106 [4th Dept 2004]).

2012Thus, the third prong of the relation-back doctrine is not satisfied because it cannot be said that, “but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against [Gallagher] as well” (id. at 178; see Doe v HMO-CNY, 14 AD3d 102, 105-106 [2004]).

2022Contrary to Ross's contention in appeal No. 1, the motion to dismiss was properly denied based on the relation back doctrine ( see May v Buffalo MRI Partners, L.P. [appeal No. 2], 151 AD3d 1657, 1658 [4th Dept 2017]). " 'In order for a claim asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claim was filed against another defendant, the plaintiff[] must establish that (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new defendant is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of th

2009Since it is undisputed that the statute of limitations had expired with respect to the amended verified complaint naming the defendant John Choi as a defendant, the burden was on the plaintiff to establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine (see Cardamom v Ricotta, 47 AD3d 659, 660 [2008]; Nani v Gould, 39 AD3d 508, 509 [2007]).

2026"Consequently, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a question of fact as to whether the relation-back doctrine applied" ( see Marcotrigiano v Dental Specialty Assoc., P.C. , 209 AD3d 850, 851 [2d Dept 2022]).

2026"Consequently, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to present evidence raising a question of fact as to whether the relation-back doctrine applied" ( see Marcotrigiano v Dental Specialty Assoc., P.C. , 209 AD3d 850, 851 [2d Dept 2022]).

2025With respect to the third prong of the relation back doctrine, plaintiff was required to "establish that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against that party as well" ( Lostracco , 38 AD3d at 1312 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Buran , 87 NY2d at 178 ; Williams v Majewski , 291 AD2d 816, 817 [4th Dept 2002]).

2025With respect to the third prong of the relation back doctrine, plaintiff was required to "establish that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against that party as well" ( Lostracco , 38 AD3d at 1312 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Buran , 87 NY2d at 178 ; Williams v Majewski , 291 AD2d 816, 817 [4th Dept 2002]).

2023The burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact whether the relation back doctrine applied ( see Marcotrigiano v Dental Specialty Assoc., P.C. , 209 AD3d 850, 851 [2d Dept 2022]; see generally Stepanian v Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Inc. , 207 AD3d 1182, 1183 [4th Dept 2022]; Kulback's Inc. v Buffalo State Ventures, LLC , 197 AD3d 890, 891 [4th Dept 2021]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Brown , 186 AD3d 1038, 1039 [4th Dept 2020]). " 'In order for a claim asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claim was filed against another defendant, the plaintiff[ ] must establish that (1

2023Based on that evidence, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether Kaleida and Zlotnick are united in interest, and thus there is a triable issue of fact whether the second prong of the relation back doctrine is satisfied ( see Marcotrigiano , 209 AD3d at 852 ; see also Mignone , 212 AD3d at 803-804 ; Cole , 309 AD2d at 1167 ).

2025Under the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff may amend the complaint to add a party even though the statute of limitations has expired if the plaintiff satisfies three conditions: "(1) that both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) that the new party is 'united in interest' with the original defendant such that it may be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits, and (3) that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity

2025Under the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff may amend the complaint to add a party even though the statute of limitations has expired if the plaintiff satisfies three conditions: "(1) that both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) that the new party is 'united in interest' with the original defendant such that it may be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits, and (3) that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity

2024"The sine qua non of the relation back doctrine is notice" ( Pendleton v City of New York , 44 AD3d 733, 736 [2d Dept 2007]), and such "notice must be contained in the original pleading" ( New York Cent.

2024Even though notice is the primary consideration for relation back purposes ( see Pendleton , 44 AD3d at 736 ) and is part of the second prong of the relation back test ( see Buran , 87 NY2d at 178 ), the mechanism of relation back is not available here due to the nonwaivable jurisdictional flaws inherent in plaintiff's Court of Claims case.

2024Moreover, a movant seeking to apply the relation- back doctrine to a later identified "John Doe" defendant, pursuant to CPLR § 1024, also has the burden of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party's identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Diaz v City of New York, 160 AD3d 457 , 457 [1st Dept 2018]; Holmes v City of New York, 132 AD3d 952, 954 [2d Dept 2015]).

2023Since the plaintiff failed to establish that diligent efforts were made to ascertain Alleman's identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, he likewise could not rely upon the relation-back doctrine ( see Holmes v City of New York , 132 AD3d at 954 ; Temple v New York Community Hosp. of Brooklyn , 89 AD3d at 927 ; Bumpus v New York City Tr.

2026"The relation-back doctrine is inapplicable where the original allegations did not provide the defendant notice of the need to defend against the allegations of the amended complaint" ( Moezinia v Ashkenazi , 136 AD3d at 992 ).

2026Under the relation-back doctrine, "[a] claim asserted in an amended pleading is [*2] deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading" (CPLR 203[f]; see Moezinia v Ashkenazi , 136 AD3d 990, 992 ).