Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 283, 678 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10098

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 283 (Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc.) 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

Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc., 254 A.D.2d 283, 678 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the third-party defendant Frank G. Relf appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated January 12, 1998, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to include a direct cause of action against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to include a direct cause of action against the appellant is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in allowing the plaintiff to amend [284]*284his complaint to include a direct cause of action against the appellant. Even with the benefit of the relation back provision of CPLR 203 (f), the plaintiffs claim against the appellant, which is subject to a three-year limitation period (see, CPLR 214), was untimely when the third-party action against the appellant for contribution was commenced (see, CPLR 214; Liverpool v Arverne Houses, 67 NY2d 878; Dormitory Auth. v Baker, Jr., of N. Y., 218 AD2d 515, 516; cf., Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 NY2d 473). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and Mc-Ginity, 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 breach of contract, the third-party defendant Frank G. Relf appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated January 12, 1998, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to include a direct cause of action against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to include a direct cause of action against the appellant is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in allowing the plaintiff to amend [284]*284his complaint to include a direct cause of action against the appellant. Even with the benefit of the relation back provision of CPLR 203 (f), the plaintiffs claim against the appellant, which is subject to a three-year limitation period (see, CPLR 214), was untimely when the third-party action against the appellant for contribution was commenced (see, CPLR 214; Liverpool v Arverne Houses, 67 NY2d 878; Dormitory Auth. v Baker, Jr., of N. Y., 218 AD2d 515, 516; cf., Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 NY2d 473). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 283, 678 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zamani-v-rite-way-building-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack