Rotondi v. DeFazio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rotondi v. DeFazio

92 A.D.3d 859, 938 N.Y.2d 817

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 859 (Rotondi v. DeFazio) 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

Rotondi v. DeFazio, 92 A.D.3d 859, 938 N.Y.2d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add Gregory DeFazio and Laurence DeFazio, M.D., EC., as defendants. Although the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ proposed claims against these parties expired before the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint, the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a basis for application of the relation-back doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173 [1995]; Rivera v Fishkin, 48 AD3d 663, 664 [2008]; Monir v Khandakar, 30 AD3d 487, 489-490 [2006]; Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273, 275 [1998]; Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 46-48 [1981]). Rivera, J.E, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add Gregory DeFazio and Laurence DeFazio, M.D., EC., as defendants. Although the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ proposed claims against these parties expired before the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint, the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a basis for application of the relation-back doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173 [1995]; Rivera v Fishkin, 48 AD3d 663, 664 [2008]; Monir v Khandakar, 30 AD3d 487, 489-490 [2006]; Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273, 275 [1998]; Connell v Hayden, 83 AD2d 30, 46-48 [1981]). Rivera, J.E, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 859, 938 N.Y.2d 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotondi-v-defazio-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack