From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1998
254 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 5, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.).


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 his 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 plaintiff's 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 N.Y.2d 878; Dormitory Auth. v. Baker, Jr., of N.Y., 218 A.D.2d 515, 516; cf., Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 473).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1998
254 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HOSSEIN ZAMANI, Respondent, v. RITE WAY BUILDING INDUSTRIES, INC.…

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

Spence v. Bear Stearns Co., Inc., Page 602

Similarly, it was error to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint to add Sheresky and Colton Hartnick as…