Boxhorn v. Alliance Imaging Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 June 2010
• Citation: Boxhorn v. Alliance Imaging Inc., 74 A.D.3d 1735, 901 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5051 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
• Parties: Leslie BOXHORN, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT,v.ALLIANCE IMAGING, INC., Defendant.Alliance Imaging, Inc., Third–Party Plaintiff,v.Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., And Medical Coaches, Incorporated, Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

74 A.D.3d 1735

901 N.Y.S.2d 891

2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 05051

Leslie BOXHORN, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT,

v.ALLIANCE IMAGING, INC., Defendant.Alliance Imaging, Inc., Third–Party Plaintiff,

v.Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., And Medical Coaches, Incorporated, Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

June 11, 2010.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (Thomas P. Brown, A.J.), entered February 20, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for leave to amend the complaint to add the third-party defendants as defendants.Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria Llp, Buffalo (John A. Collins Of Counsel), for plaintiff–appellant.Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly, LLP, New York City (Joseph Lipari of Counsel), for third–party defendant–respondent Siemens Medical Systems, Inc.Damon Morey LLP, Buffalo (Vincent Saccomando of Counsel), for third–party defendant–respondent Medical Coaches, Incorporated.MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries she sustained on May 24, 2005. On March 11, 2008, defendant filed a third-party complaint and, on October 24, 2008, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add the third-party defendants as defendants. We conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion ( see generally Torvec, Inc. v. CXO on the GO of Del., LLC, 38 A.D.3d 1175, 831 N.Y.S.2d 800). In the absence of prejudice or surprise, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted ( see CPLR 3025[b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757, 463 N.Y.S.2d 434, 450 N.E.2d 240). In support of her motion, plaintiff established that the relation-back doctrine applied for purposes of computing the statute of limitations because her claims against the third-party defendants related back to those asserted in the third-party complaint, which was timely served ( see CPLR 203[f]; Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 473, 478, 497 N.Y.S.2d 890, 488 N.E.2d 820).

In opposition to the motion, the third-party defendants failed to establish that they would be prejudiced by the delay in amending the complaint ( see Rodschat v. Herzog Supply Co., 208 A.D.2d 1167, 1167–1168, 617 N.Y.S.2d 586). While the amended complaint added a new theory of recovery against them, i.e., strict products liability, that theory arose out of the same transaction set forth in the original complaint ( see Presutti v. Suss, 254 A.D.2d 785, 786, 678 N.Y.S.2d 187; ...