Bracken v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Authority
| Decision Date | 10 June 1998 |
| Citation | 674 N.Y.S.2d 221,251 A.D.2d 1068 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5553 James P. BRACKEN and Janet L. Bensman, Appellants, v. NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Magavern, Magavern & Grim by Richard Grimm, III, Buffalo, for Plaintiffs-Appellant.
Lippes, Silverstein, Mathias and Wexler, LLP (Mary K. Knauf, of counsel), Buffalo, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before PINE, J.P., and HAYES, WISNER, BALIO and FALLON, JJ.
Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant, Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA), to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by James P. Bracken (plaintiff) when he was allegedly assaulted by unknown assailants while riding a light rail transit train. After the Statute of Limitations expired, an attorney for NFTA advised plaintiffs' attorney that NFTA did not own the train or employ the train operator.
Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion to amend the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 305(b) to name Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc. (Metro), as the correct defendant. A motion to amend the summons and complaint to reflect the correct defendant should be granted even after the Statute of Limitations has run "where (1) there is evidence that the correct defendant (misnamed in the original process) has in fact been properly served, and (2) the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by granting the amendment sought" (Ober v. Rye Town Hilton 159 A.D.2d 16, 20, 557 N.Y.S.2d 937; see, Balderman v. Capital City/Am. Broadcasting Co., 233 A.D.2d 861, 862, 649 N.Y.S.2d 284). It is undisputed that plaintiffs timely served the notice of claim and process upon an attorney who is an agent authorized to accept service on behalf of both corporations (see, Balderman v. Capital City/Am. Broadcasting Co., supra, at 862, 649 N.Y.S.2d 284). Further, the allegations of the notice of claim and the complaint fairly apprise Metro that it was the party that plaintiffs intended to name (see, Balderman v. Capital City/Am. Broadcasting Co., supra, at 862, 649 N.Y.S.2d 284). We perceive no prejudice to Metro resulting from the amendment, and we modify the order, therefore, by granting plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs have not briefed the issue whether the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against NFTA, and we deem that issue abandoned (see, Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liss v. Seamark Foods
...16, 557 N.Y.S.2d 937 (1990). See also Perrin v. McKenzie, 266 A.D.2d 269, 698 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1999); Bracken v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 251 A.D.2d 1068, 674 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1998); Pugliese v. Paneorama Italian Bakery Corp., 243 A.D.2d 548, 664 N.Y.S.2d 602 (1997). "An amendmen......
-
Martin v. Witkowski
...Rye Town Hilton, 159 A.D.2d 16, 19–20, 557 N.Y.S.2d 937 [2d Dept. 1990] [emphasis added]; see Bracken v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 251 A.D.2d 1068, 1068, 674 N.Y.S.2d 221 [4th Dept. 1998] ). The Stuyvesant rule, which has been codified and subsumed within CPLR 305(c), applies when the......
-
Gennosa v. Twinco Services, Inc.
...was fairly apprised of the action against it such that it is not prejudiced by the amendment (see, Bracken v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 251 A.D.2d 1068, 674 N.Y.S.2d 221; Feszczyszyn v. General Motors Corp., 248 A.D.2d 939, 669 N.Y.S.2d 1010; Pugliese v. Paneorama Italian Bakery Corp.......
-
Gabriel v. Johnston's L.P. Gas Serv., Inc.
...first sentence of section IV: “Nevertheless, we exercise our power to reach that issue ( see generally Bracken v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 251 A.D.2d 1068, 1069, 674 N.Y.S.2d 221), and we conclude that the court erred in determining that those medical examinations must be conducted i......