Liverpool v. ARVERNE HOUSES, INC.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- ABV Med. Supplies Inc. v. MTA Bus - LaGuardia (NYC Civil Court, Kings 2025)
- Bisono v. Mist Enters., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- C-Kitchens Associates, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Companies (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Fitzpatrick v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 2000)
- Spence v. Bear Stearns & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Zamani v. Rite Way Building Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Sandor v. Somerstown Plaza Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Zafputo v. New Life Community Church (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Anderson v. Carney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Virelli v. Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Fraccola v. City of Utica Board of Water Supply (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Zaveta v. Portelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
As we recently explained in Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp. (66 NY2d 473), "[i]t is one thing to permit an amendment to relate back as applied to parties before the court. It is quite another thing to permit an amendment to relate back when a new party is sought to be added by amendment against whom the Statute of Limitations has run” (id., at p 477). Inasmuch as the party sought to be added as a defendant in plaintiffs second amended complaint was a stranger to the litigation prior to the expiration of the applicable Statutes of Limitations, plaintiffs claim against that party was necessarily barred as untimely. Moreover, although CPLR 1009 provides a 20-day period within which a plaintiff need not obtain leave of the court to amend the complaint to assert direct claims against a new third-party defendant, the statute does not relieve a plaintiff from the operation of the Statutes of Limitations otherwise applicable to the claims asserted.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.