delay in asserting claim (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

delay in asserting claim in New York

7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Barrera v. City of New Yorkgreen
nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021Plaintiff was not experiencing symptoms of the preexisting condition prior to her fall and injury, she was not aware of that condition prior to receiving the diagnosis, and plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint promptly after her diagnosis, prior to the dates set forth in the fifth amended scheduling order for the completion of discovery and expert disclosure, and before a note of issue was filed ( cf. Stewart v Dunkleman , 128 AD3d 1338 , 1340 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]; Barrera v City of New York , 265 AD2d 516, 518 [2d Dept 1999]).

11
People v. Wilsongreen
nyappdiv · 1987 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Nothing in defense counsel's examination of the psychologist — in which counsel elicited the psychologist's knowledge of certain inconvenient facts in a seeming effort to show that the psychologist had considered them in forming an opinion as to defendant's mental state — reflected a lack of preparation as opposed to valid strategy ( cf. People v Wilson , 133 AD2d 179, 181-182 [1987]) [FN1] .

11
Connell v. Haydengreen
nyappdiv · 1981 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993Nor can the claim be deemed to "relate back” (CPLR 203 [f]; see, Brock v Bua, 83 AD2d 61, 69 ) since the parties are not united in interest (see, Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 40 ), the original pleading did not give notice of the claim, and no reásonable excuse for the delay in asserting the claim was offered.

11
Brock v. Buagreen
nyappdiv · 1981 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
1 sentence

1993Nor can the claim be deemed to "relate back” (CPLR 203 [f]; see, Brock v Bua, 83 AD2d 61, 69 ) since the parties are not united in interest (see, Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 40 ), the original pleading did not give notice of the claim, and no reásonable excuse for the delay in asserting the claim was offered.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Stewart v. Dunkleman green
nyappdiv · 2015
1 sentence

2021Plaintiff was not experiencing symptoms of the preexisting condition prior to her fall and injury, she was not aware of that condition prior to receiving the diagnosis, and plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint promptly after her diagnosis, prior to the dates set forth in the fifth amended scheduling order for the completion of discovery and expert disclosure, and before a note of issue was filed ( cf. Stewart v Dunkleman , 128 AD3d 1338 , 1340 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]; Barrera v City of New York , 265 AD2d 516, 518 [2d Dept 1999]).

12021–2021
Paikoff v. Harris green
nyappterm · 1999
1 sentence

2004The arguments raised by the dissent with respect to the proper interpretation of the Martin Act were amply addressed by this court in Paikoff v Harris ( 185 Misc 2d 372 [1999], supra) and Geiser v Maran ( 189 Misc 2d 442 [2001], supra) and will not be further addressed here.

12004–2004
Geiser v. Maran green
nyappterm · 2001
1 sentence

2004The arguments raised by the dissent with respect to the proper interpretation of the Martin Act were amply addressed by this court in Paikoff v Harris ( 185 Misc 2d 372 [1999], supra) and Geiser v Maran ( 189 Misc 2d 442 [2001], supra) and will not be further addressed here.

12004–2004
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Bekins Record Storage Co. green
nyappdiv · 1983
1 sentence

1994Corp. v City of New York, 95 AD2d 655, 656 , citing Siegel, NY Prac § 237, at 289).

11994–1994
Fulford v. Baker Perkins, Inc. green
nyappdiv · 1984
1 sentence

1994Such prejudice, coupled with appellants’ failure to offer any excuse for the delay in asserting the defense, provided ample reason for denying the motion (see, e.g., Fulford v Baker Perkins, 100 AD2d 861 ; see also, Pegno Constr.

11994–1994
Wimbish v. Green neutral
nyappdiv · 1993
1 sentence

1994In fact, plaintiff was aware of the identity of defendant as the lessee of the premises where plaintiff was allegedly assaulted long before the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, but failed to commence an action against it (see, Wimbish v Green, 191 AD2d 491 ).

11994–1994
Bangor Clothing Co. v. Superior Sportswear Corp. green
nyappdiv · 1964
1 sentence

1991(See, Bangor Clothing Co. v Superior Sportswear Corp., 22 AD2d 864 , affd 16 NY2d 1018 .) It should also be noted that all of the deliveries were made on consignment memorandum.

11991–1991
Bangor Clothing Co. v. Superior Sportswear Corp. green
ny · 1965
1 sentence

1991(See, Bangor Clothing Co. v Superior Sportswear Corp., 22 AD2d 864 , affd 16 NY2d 1018 .) It should also be noted that all of the deliveries were made on consignment memorandum.

11991–1991

Where else courts name it

GA 12 (1942–2017) WA 8 (1944–2019) NY 7 (1991–2021) PA 6 (1940–2025) CA 3 (2018–2024) OR 3 (1967–2020) TX 2 (1985–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check