Liverpool v. ARVERNE HOUSES, INC.

New York Court of Appeals

Liverpool v. ARVERNE HOUSES, INC.

492 N.E.2d 1218, 67 N.Y.2d 878, 501 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17665

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 492 N.E.2d 1218 (Liverpool v. ARVERNE HOUSES, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Liverpool v. ARVERNE HOUSES, INC., 492 N.E.2d 1218, 67 N.Y.2d 878, 501 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17665 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

As we recently explained in Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp. (66 NY2d 473), "[i]t is one thing to permit an amendment to relate back as applied to parties before the court. It is quite another thing to permit an amendment to relate back when a new party is sought to be added by amendment against whom the Statute of Limitations has run” (id., at p 477). Inasmuch as the party sought to be added as a defendant in plaintiffs second amended complaint was a stranger to the litigation prior to the expiration of the applicable Statutes of Limitations, plaintiffs claim against that party was necessarily barred as untimely. Moreover, although CPLR 1009 provides a 20-day period within which a plaintiff need not obtain leave of the court to amend the complaint to assert direct claims against a new third-party defendant, the statute does not relieve a plaintiff from the operation of the Statutes of Limitations otherwise applicable to the claims asserted.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

As we recently explained in Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp. (66 NY2d 473), "[i]t is one thing to permit an amendment to relate back as applied to parties before the court. It is quite another thing to permit an amendment to relate back when a new party is sought to be added by amendment against whom the Statute of Limitations has run” (id., at p 477). Inasmuch as the party sought to be added as a defendant in plaintiffs second amended complaint was a stranger to the litigation prior to the expiration of the applicable Statutes of Limitations, plaintiffs claim against that party was necessarily barred as untimely. Moreover, although CPLR 1009 provides a 20-day period within which a plaintiff need not obtain leave of the court to amend the complaint to assert direct claims against a new third-party defendant, the statute does not relieve a plaintiff from the operation of the Statutes of Limitations otherwise applicable to the claims asserted.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 N.E.2d 1218, 67 N.Y.2d 878, 501 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liverpool-v-arverne-houses-inc-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack