From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Figueroa v. Port Morris Tile Terrazo Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).


The motion court properly concluded that the doctrine of relation back allowed amendment of the pleadings to add Port Morris Marble as an additional defendant since Port Morris Marble is "united in interest" with defendant 1370 Broadway Associates (CPLR 203 [b], Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173). However, since the record reveals that Port Morris Tile had nothing to do with the construction project at issue and, accordingly, that it was mistakenly named as a defendant, the complaint and all cross claims against it should have been dismissed.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Figueroa v. Port Morris Tile Terrazo Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Figueroa v. Port Morris Tile Terrazo Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HIPOLITO R. FIGUEROA, Respondent, v. PORT MORRIS TILE TERRAZO CORPORATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 26, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 214

Citing Cases

Bracken v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth

Plaintiffs have not briefed the issue whether the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the…