Hyun S. Yang v Patrick Griffin
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury negligence (slip-and-fall); statute of limitations and relation-back doctrine
Dismissed the complaint as time-barred and denied consolidation with the prior action.
The dismissal and the denial of consolidation.
The relation-back doctrine under Buran v Coupal applied: the claims arise from the same occurrence, Griffin and Au Jus were united in interest, and the failure to add Griffin earlier was a mistake; Griffin had notice and would not be prejudiced. Although the action was filed after CPLR 214[5] [three-year statute of limitations for negligence] expired, relation back saves the claim.
Background
Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on February 3, 2021, on a sidewalk abutting premises associated with Au Jus and 99th Street LLC. Plaintiff timely sued those entities in 2021 (Index No. 158372/2021). Discovery in that case included Griffin’s deposition; he testified he owned and managed Au Jus and personally handled or supervised snow and ice removal the day of the accident. Plaintiff later filed a separate action against Griffin individually more than a month after the limitations period lapsed and moved to consolidate with the original action. Griffin moved to dismiss as untimely.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted Griffin’s motion to dismiss as barred by the statute of limitations and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to consolidate.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, denied the motion to dismiss, and granted consolidation. It held all three Buran factors were satisfied: same occurrence, unity of interest between Griffin and Au Jus because they would stand or fall together, and a mistake rather than a tactical omission, with no prejudice given Griffin’s notice and prior deposition.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that relation-back can permit late claims against an individual closely tied to an originally sued entity when unity of interest and notice are present, even after CPLR 214[5] has run. Clarifies that speculative assertions of tactical delay do not defeat relation back absent record support, and supports consolidation of related actions arising from the same incident.
If a newly named defendant is united in interest with an originally sued party and had timely notice, a late-filed negligence claim can relate back and avoid dismissal as time-barred, and the actions should be consolidated.