Feszczyszyn v. General Motors Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memo*940randum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of the cross motion of plaintiff to serve an amended summons and complaint adding Isuzu Motors, Ltd. (Isuzu Ltd.), as a defendant. Where, as here, the Statute of Limitations has expired, “CPLR 203 (b) sets forth a ‘relation back’ rule which essentially provides that where there are several defendants and they are ‘united in interest’, commencing an action against one within the applicable statutory period will preserve the action…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Buran v. CoupalNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Raschel v. RishNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Ober v. HiltonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Lamarr v. KleinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Smith v. Garo Enterprises, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Gennosa v. Twinco Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Beck v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Security Mutual Insurance v. Black & Decker Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Smith v. Giuffre Hyundai, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.