Sainplice v Tuizer
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury (bicycle-truck collision); civil procedure—amendment of pleadings and relation-back after the statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied plaintiff’s CPLR 3025(b) motion to amend to add four proposed defendants.
The denial was modified: leave to amend was granted to add Levi Hirschfeld, Hi Rise Supply Corp., and HR Steel, Inc., but the denial as to Rafi Twizar was affirmed.
Under CPLR 3025(b) [rule allowing amendment of pleadings by leave of court] and CPLR 1003 [parties may be added at any stage of the action by leave of court], the relation-back doctrine was satisfied for the three added parties (same occurrence, unity of interest with the originally named Hi Rise Steel, Inc., and knowledge that but for a mistake they would have been sued), and no prejudice was shown; delay alone was insufficient to deny amendment. As to Rafi Twizar, plaintiff failed to show unity of interest or that he knew/should have known he would have been sued but for a mistake, and the claim he was the driver was speculative.
Background
Plaintiff allegedly was struck by the side mirror of a pickup truck while bicycling at Ralph Avenue and East 78th Street in Brooklyn on December 13, 2015. He sued in July 2016, naming driver Amram Tuizer and owner Hi Rise Steel, Inc. In December 2022, after the statute of limitations expired, he moved to amend to add Rafi Twizar (alleged actual driver), Hi Rise Supply Corp., HR Steel, Inc., and Levi Hirschfeld, alleging the latter three owned/controlled/maintained the truck. Nonparty Wesco Insurance Company, the truck’s insurer, opposed. The Supreme Court denied the motion.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Campanelli, J.), denied leave to amend to add all four proposed defendants.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified: it granted leave to amend to add Hi Rise Supply Corp., HR Steel, Inc., and Levi Hirschfeld as defendants under the relation-back doctrine, finding no prejudice and that delay alone did not bar amendment. It affirmed denial as to Rafi Twizar, holding plaintiff failed to establish unity of interest or the knowledge prong, and that the assertion he was the driver was speculative. No costs or disbursements.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that, in personal injury actions, related corporate entities and an individual united in interest with an originally named corporate defendant may be added after the statute of limitations via the relation-back doctrine when they had notice and would not be prejudiced. The ruling reinforces that mere delay does not defeat CPLR 3025(b) amendments absent prejudice, and that adding a purported driver requires non-speculative evidence and satisfaction of unity-of-interest and knowledge prongs.
In New York, amendments to add related entities can relate back after limitations if unity of interest and notice are shown and no prejudice is demonstrated; delay alone is insufficient. But speculative allegations about a new driver’s identity cannot support relation-back.