“Just Because We Have a lot in Common Doesn’t Mean I’m Ready to be Long Term Co-Defendants.”
The statute of limitations is a concept that essentially says, “you can’t wait too long to bring a lawsuit, otherwise, your claim, like an avocado, will expire before you know it.” However, as with everything in the law, there are exceptions, and in the case of a statute of limitations, the “relation-back” doctrine allows the commencement of a lawsuit after the statute of limitations so long as certain conditions are met. The Appellate Division, Second Department, in a recent decision, gives us a look at the relation-back doctrine in the Labor Law context.
In Rowe v. 4601 Second Ave, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03772, plaintiff alleges that on November 23, 2014, he was injured when he fell from scaffolding while working in a building owned by the defendant. Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6), and in April, 2019, plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to add an additional construction company. The Supreme Court, Kings County granted that branch of plaintiff’s motion and plaintiff appealed.
Quickly, the relation-back doctrine allows the commencement of an action after the statute of limitations has expired when three (3) conditions are met:
- The causes of action arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence;
- The new party is united in interest with one or more of the original defendants, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense on the merits; and,
- The new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been commenced against him or her as well.
The Second Department reversed the lower Court’s decision noting that to establish “unity of interest” between two defendants, more is required than a “common interest in the outcome”, they must share “exactly the same jural relationship in the subject action.” Defendants “are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a different defense than the original party.” The Second Department further noted that the defendant owner and the defendant lessee or general contractor have different defenses available to them under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6) and they are therefore not united in interest. As they are not united in interest, the cause of action against the general contractor does not relate back to the time of the commencement of the action against the owner and the lower Court should have denied that branch of plaintiff’s motion.
The Rowe decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
