Cady v. Springbrook NY, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 December 2016
• Citation: 44 N.Y.S.3d 107,145 A.D.3d 846,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08495
• Parties: Kathy CADY, etc., appellant, v. SPRINGBROOK NY, INC., formerly known as Upstate Home for Children and Adults, Inc., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 846

44 N.Y.S.3d 107

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08495

Kathy CADY, etc., appellant,

v.SPRINGBROOK NY, INC., formerly known as Upstate Home for Children and Adults, Inc., respondent.

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

Dec. 21, 2016.

The Law Firm of William G. Sayegh, P.C., Carmel, NY (Robert A. Weis of counsel), for appellant.

Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York, NY (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated October 6, 2014, as granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred except insofar as it relates to the claims asserted in the original complaint arising from the "alleged ingestion of foreign objects."

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By summons and complaint filed March 30, 2012, this action was commenced on behalf of A. M. against the defendant, Springbrook NY, Inc., formerly known as Upstate Home for Children and Adults, Inc. The complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent in its care and supervision of A. M., in that, from January 2007 through March 2008, the defendant failed to appropriately supervise A. M., resulting in A. M.'s ingestion of multiple foreign objects. In an amended complaint dated October 9, 2013, the following allegations, inter alia, were added: intimidation by other residents; physical and psychological abuse from staff members; failure to properly administer medication; causing A. M. to undergo unauthorized and inappropriate medical treatment without informed consent; negligently administering an unauthorized influenza vaccination ; and failure to implement A. M.'s Individualized Education Plan. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint except insofar as it related to the claims asserted in the original complaint arising from the "alleged ingestion of foreign objects." The defendant argued that the proposed amendments did not relate back to the original complaint and were therefore barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.

The "relation-back doctrine" permits a plaintiff "to interpose a claim or cause of action which would ordinarily be time-barred, where the allegations of the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proven and the cause of action would have been timely interposed if asserted in the original complaint" (Pendleton v. City of New York, 44 A.D.3d 733, 736, 843 N.Y.S.2d 648 ; see CPLR 203[f] ; 39 Coll. Point Corp. v. Transpac Capital Corp.,

27 A.D.3d 454, 455, 810 N.Y.S.2d 520 ). Under this doctrine, a new theory of recovery may be asserted, so long as it arises from the same transactions alleged in the original complaint (see 39 Coll. Point Corp. v. Transpac Capital Corp., 27 A.D.3d at 455, 810 N.Y.S.2d 520 ; C–Kitchens Assoc., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Cos., 15 A.D.3d 905, 906, 789 N.Y.S.2d 567 ). Where the allegations of the original complaint gave the defendants notice of the facts and occurrences giving rise to the new cause of action, the new cause...