Crossbay Associates, LLC v Singh
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction and adjacent-property excavation liability, specifically whether a property owner could add engineering consultants as defendants after the statute of limitations expired in a suit over collapse damage allegedly caused by unsupported excavation.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted leave under CPLR 3025(b) [leave to amend pleadings] to add a strict liability claim against certain existing defendants, but denied leave to amend to add Rizwan Abdus Salam P.E. Consulting Engineer, P.C. and Rizwan Abdus Salam as defendants.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial in part and allowed the proposed defendants to be added for negligence and gross negligence claims, but not for the strict liability claim.
The relation-back doctrine applied to negligence and gross negligence because those claims arose from the same excavation incident, the existing defendants and proposed defendants were united in interest through potential vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work, and the proposed defendants knew or should have known they would have been sued but for the plaintiff's mistake. The doctrine did not apply to the strict liability claim under New York City Building Code (Administrative Code of City of New York, title 28, chapter 7) § BC 3309.4 [imposes strict or absolute liability upon the person who causes an excavation to be made] because the proposed defendants were neither the adjacent owners nor the contractor that performed the excavation and therefore had different defenses.
Background
The plaintiff owned property next to property owned by members of the Singh family. The complaint alleged that in November 2018 the defendants, or a contractor retained by them, performed excavation work without proper support of excavation, such as a shoring wall, causing part of the plaintiff's building to collapse. The plaintiff originally sued the neighboring owners and AT-SAF, Inc., an alleged general contractor. In November 2022, after the limitations period had expired, the plaintiff moved under CPLR 3025(b) [leave to amend pleadings] to add Rizwan Abdus Salam P.E. Consulting Engineer, P.C. and Rizwan Abdus Salam, alleging they had been retained to provide support-of-excavation and foundation engineering services, and also sought to add a strict liability claim.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court allowed amendment to assert a strict liability claim against Inderpal Singh, Sikander Singh, and AT-SAF, Inc., but refused to allow amendment adding the proposed engineering defendants. It effectively found the plaintiff had not justified adding those parties after the statute of limitations expired.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by granting leave to amend the complaint to add Rizwan Abdus Salam P.E. Consulting Engineer, P.C. and Rizwan Abdus Salam as defendants on the negligence and gross negligence causes of action. It otherwise affirmed, holding that amendment to add them on the strict liability cause of action remained barred.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that under New York's relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff may add a new defendant after the statute of limitations if the claims arise from the same occurrence, the new and existing defendants are united in interest, and the new defendant knew or should have known the failure to sue it earlier was a mistake. The court emphasized that parties can be united in interest where existing defendants may be vicariously liable for an independent contractor's negligence because the work was inherently dangerous. But unity of interest fails where the proposed defendants have distinct defenses, as with strict liability under New York City Building Code § BC 3309.4 [imposes strict or absolute liability upon the person who causes an excavation to be made].
In excavation-damage cases, engineering or excavation-related consultants may be added late for negligence-based claims if relation back is satisfied, especially where inherently dangerous work could create vicarious liability tying their interests to existing defendants. But they cannot be added on a strict liability excavation claim unless they fit the specific class of actors subject to that statute.