Hauck v. New York Hilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hauck v. New York Hilton

276 A.D.2d 378, 714 N.Y.S.2d 71, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10619

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 378 (Hauck v. New York Hilton) 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

Hauck v. New York Hilton, 276 A.D.2d 378, 714 N.Y.S.2d 71, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered August 27, 1999, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve an amended complaint adding Kinney System, Inc. as a defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly permitted plaintiff to serve an amended complaint adding Kinney System, Inc. as a defendant, since the amended complaint’s cause of action against Kinney relates back to the original, timely asserted cause of action against defendant New York Hilton (see, CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177). Kinney does not dispute that the claim against it arises out of the same incident underlying plaintiff’s claim against Hilton, or that it is “united in interest” with Hilton. Further, inasmuch as Kinney indisputably had notice of plaintiffs claim, it has not been prejudiced by plaintiffs delay and it is immaterial whether plaintiffs failure originally to name Kinney as a defendant was “ ‘excusable’ ” (Buran v Coupal, supra, at 182). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered August 27, 1999, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve an amended complaint adding Kinney System, Inc. as a defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly permitted plaintiff to serve an amended complaint adding Kinney System, Inc. as a defendant, since the amended complaint’s cause of action against Kinney relates back to the original, timely asserted cause of action against defendant New York Hilton (see, CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177). Kinney does not dispute that the claim against it arises out of the same incident underlying plaintiff’s claim against Hilton, or that it is “united in interest” with Hilton. Further, inasmuch as Kinney indisputably had notice of plaintiffs claim, it has not been prejudiced by plaintiffs delay and it is immaterial whether plaintiffs failure originally to name Kinney as a defendant was “ ‘excusable’ ” (Buran v Coupal, supra, at 182). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 378, 714 N.Y.S.2d 71, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauck-v-new-york-hilton-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack