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.
Steven J. OPIELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAY INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Defendant, Lehrer McGovern & Bovis, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered May 23, 2003, which granted defendants-respondents' motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a piece of metal that fell from a construction area at the Central Terminal Building at La Guardia Airport. A condition for commencing an action against an unknown party (CPLR 1024) is that the plaintiff demonstrate he or she made a genuine effort to ascertain, in a timely manner, the identity of the defendants prior to expiration of the statute of limitations (Tucker v. Lorieo, 291 A.D.2d 261, 738 N.Y.S.2d 33). While plaintiff's own efforts to identify the actual defendants responsible for erecting the construction canopy resulted in inaccurate information, he could have obtained the contractors' names before expiration of the three-year limitations period. Indeed, the statute was tolled for an additional 120 days after commencement of the action by filing (CPLR 306-b). Nevertheless, nearly two years passed before plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add respondents as new parties defendant. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that respondents were in any way united in interest with the originally named defendants (CPLR 203[b]; see Scoma v. Doe, 2 A.D.3d 432, 767 N.Y.S.2d 840).
A plaintiff may amend a complaint to reflect the true names of the defendants in question, but only where such parties were fairly apprised that they are the intended defendants and are not prejudiced thereby (see ICD Group Intl. Ltd. v. Achidov, 284 A.D.2d 244, 726 N.Y.S.2d 654). The allegations in the complaint were insufficient to advise defendants-respondents that they were the intended subjects of plaintiff's lawsuit. Denial of an extension of time for service was, under these circumstances, a proper exercise of the court's discretion (cf. Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 101, 107, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018).
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: August 26, 2004
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)