Euroway Contracting Corp. v. Mastermind Estate Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Euroway Contracting Corp. v. Mastermind Estate Development Corp.

59 A.D.3d 157, 872 N.Y.S.2d 123

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 157 (Euroway Contracting Corp. v. Mastermind Estate Development Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Euroway Contracting Corp. v. Mastermind Estate Development Corp., 59 A.D.3d 157, 872 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2008, which, in an action seeking [158]*158monies allegedly owed for labor and materials in connection with certain construction projects, granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 203 (f) to amend the complaint to include as defendants parties who either currently own properties subject to this action or to whom the properties were transferred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied the three prongs of the relation back doctrine (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178 [1995]). The court properly concluded that the corporate defendants sought to be added were united in interest with defendant Perez, as he was sole owner, shareholder, principal or agent of each proposed corporate defendant and he acted on their behalf with respect to day-to-day activities. The proposed corporate defendants could thus be charged with notice of the institution of the action and there would be no prejudice, since Perez should have known that, but for the mistake, the action would have been brought against all corporate defendants (id. at 179-181).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.R, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2008, which, in an action seeking [158]*158monies allegedly owed for labor and materials in connection with certain construction projects, granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 203 (f) to amend the complaint to include as defendants parties who either currently own properties subject to this action or to whom the properties were transferred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied the three prongs of the relation back doctrine (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178 [1995]). The court properly concluded that the corporate defendants sought to be added were united in interest with defendant Perez, as he was sole owner, shareholder, principal or agent of each proposed corporate defendant and he acted on their behalf with respect to day-to-day activities. The proposed corporate defendants could thus be charged with notice of the institution of the action and there would be no prejudice, since Perez should have known that, but for the mistake, the action would have been brought against all corporate defendants (id. at 179-181).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.R, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 157, 872 N.Y.S.2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/euroway-contracting-corp-v-mastermind-estate-development-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack