Glaser v. Pips Catering Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glaser v. Pips Catering Corp.

3 A.D.3d 517, 770 N.Y.S.2d 634

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 517 (Glaser v. Pips Catering 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

Glaser v. Pips Catering Corp., 3 A.D.3d 517, 770 N.Y.S.2d 634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), dated September 23, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding two defendants to the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Well after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations the plaintiff moved for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding two defendants to the action. We affirm the Supreme Court’s denial of the motion, since the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that the [518]*518proposed additional defendants were united in interest with the original defendant, so as to apply the relation-back doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]; Moller v Taliuaga, 255 AD2d 563 [1998]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), dated September 23, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding two defendants to the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Well after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations the plaintiff moved for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint adding two defendants to the action. We affirm the Supreme Court’s denial of the motion, since the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that the [518]*518proposed additional defendants were united in interest with the original defendant, so as to apply the relation-back doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]; Moller v Taliuaga, 255 AD2d 563 [1998]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 517, 770 N.Y.S.2d 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaser-v-pips-catering-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack