Legal Opinion
Rotondi v. DeFazio
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 21, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add Gregory DeFazio and Laurence DeFazio, M.D., EC., as defendants. Although the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ proposed claims against these parties expired before the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint, the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a basis for application of the relation-back doctrine (see CPLR 203 [b]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173 [1995]; Rivera v Fishkin, 48 AD3d 663, 664 [2008];…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Buran v. CoupalNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Connell v. HaydenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Yaniv v. TaubAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Monir v. KhandakarAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Rivera v. FishkinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
3Cited by4 opinions
- Headley v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Desimone v. New York City Depatment of TransportationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Desimone v. New York City Depatment of TransportationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Headley v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014