Opinion
26842/2009.
Decided October 3, 2011.
Sim Park, LLP, by Marc A. Williams, Esq., New York, New York, for the Plaintiffs.
Huenke Rodriguez, by Robert P. Louttit, Esq., Melville, New York, for the Defendants.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries plaintiffs allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 26, 2007. Plaintiffs have moved for leave to amend the complaint to name plaintiff Alisha Yim (Yim) in the body of the complaint and have argued that the proposed amendment will not prejudice defendants Francesca Montana and Peter Danna, sued herein as Peter Oanna (collectively referred to as defendants). In opposition, defendants have argued that the proposed amendment will result in a new cause of action that is time barred by the statute of limitations.
"Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit" ( Gitlin v Chirinkin , 60 AD3d 901 [2nd Dept. 2009]; CPLR 3025 [b]). "A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion" ( Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d at 902).
CPLR 203 (f) provides that "[a] claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading."
The "relation-back doctrine" thus "enables a plaintiff to correct a pleading error — — by adding either a new claim or a new party — — after the statutory limitations period has expired" ( Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177). As stated by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Fazio Masonry, Inc. v Barry, Bette Led Duke, Inc. ( 23 AD3d 748 , 749):
A new party plaintiff may relate [his or her] claim back to an original complaint for statute of limitations purposes only if both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and the new plaintiff and original plaintiff are so closely related or united in interest that the original claim would have given the defendant notice of the potential liability for the subsequent claim.
Plaintiffs, on the foregoing papers, have demonstrated that the relation-back doctrine applies for statute of limitations purposes because defendants were placed on notice of Yim's claim by the allegations in the original complaint, Yim's claim arises out of the same facts and occurrence as the original complaint, and Yim's claim is closely related to the claims in the original complaint so that defendants had notice of their potential liability to Yim (CPLR 203 [f]; see, e.g., HSBC Guyerzeller Bank AG v Chascona N.V. , 42 AD3d 381 , 387 [1st Dept. 2007]). Furthermore, the plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint is not patently devoid of merit, and defendants have failed to demonstrate prejudice or surprise as a result of the proposed amendment ( see, Kruger v EMFT, LLC , 87 AD3d 717 [2nd Dept. 2011]; Jablonski v Jakaitis , 85 AD3d 969 [2nd Dept. 2011]; Young v Estate of Young , 84 AD3d 1359 [2nd Dept. 2011]; Fusca v A S Const., LLC , 84 AD3d 1155 , 1157 [2nd Dept. 2011]).
Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted, and the amended verified complaint annexed to the motion papers as exhibit F is deemed served. The Court, furthermore, on its own motion, based on the defendants' representations, amends the caption to reflect the correct name of defendant Peter Danna, instead of "Oanna." The Clerk is instructed to make such corrections on all papers in the Court's files.
The foregoing constitutes the decision, order, and opinion of the Court.