Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Herbert MESSINGER, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants, Kevin Baumlin, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Andrew Messinger, et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about August 10, 1999, which denied plaintiffs' and counterclaim defendants' motion to amend their pleadings to include a Statute of Limitations defense to defendants-respondents' counterclaims and, upon such amendment, to dismiss those counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants dismissing defendants-respondents' counterclaims. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 1, 1999, which denied plaintiff's and defendants-appellants' motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable order.
Pursuant to CPLR 203(d), counterclaims which would otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations are not barred so long as they arise from the same transaction or occurrences as the primary claim (Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.], 40 N.Y.2d 788, 390 N.Y.S.2d 398, 358 N.E.2d 1024). Here, the alleged assault and battery of defendant treating physicians by plaintiff and the defendants on the counterclaim, which occurred immediately upon hearing of decedent's death, cannot be considered as arising from the same occurrence. The assault was not a part of the alleged malpractice but arguably only a result of it. The two actions are related, but there is no common thread tying the two together to warrant revival of the assault counterclaim under CPLR 203(d) (Levy v. Kendricks, 170 A.D.2d 387, 566 N.Y.S.2d 604).
Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given absent significant prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay. Defendants fail to assert any claim of prejudice. The fact that plaintiff and defendants on the counterclaim failed to assert a reasonable excuse for their delay is insufficient to prohibit them from amending their reply (Cameron v. 1199 Housing Corp., 208 A.D.2d 454, 617 N.Y.S.2d 314).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 18, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)