Cseh v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 17 June 1997 |
| Citation | 240 A.D.2d 270,658 N.Y.S.2d 618 |
| Parties | Charles CSEH, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, and Roosevelt Hospital, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Peter D. Fenzel, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Steven C. Mandell, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about March 19, 1996, which, upon deeming defendant-respondent's motion to dismiss as one to amend its answer, granted said motion, and dismissed plaintiffs' wrongful death claim against defendant-respondent as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied and the wrongful death claim is reinstated.
On March 17, 1983, plaintiff's decedent, 19 year-old Kenneth Cseh, was riding between subway cars when he fell onto the tracks, resulting in the severing of one leg, and the partial severing of another. He was brought to defendant Roosevelt Hospital, where the codefendant physicians attempted to reattach his leg. However, he died as a result of his injuries on April 15, 1983.
The plaintiffs initiated the action against the defendants on April 12, 1985, but due to a filing error, the action was not commenced until the defendant hospital received the summons on April 16, 1985, one day after the Statute of Limitations had expired. Nonetheless, the hospital never filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the wrongful death claim as time-barred, nor did it include the defense of the Statute of Limitations in its answer, served in January 1986. During the next 10 years, the parties engaged in discovery proceedings, with the plaintiffs producing documents and participating in several depositions. In July 1995, the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and the action was placed on the trial calendar.
On August 14, 1995, the hospital moved to dismiss the wrongful death claim as time-barred. No excuse for the 10-year delay in asserting the Statute of Limitations defense was offered. The IAS Court treated the motion as one to amend the answer to include the defense of the Statute of Limitations, and then dismissed the wrongful death claim on that ground. It found that plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the amendment since they had not identified any documents or deposition testimony, relating solely to the wrongful death claim, which they had been required to produce. According to the court, production of such evidence would have been required in any event because the plaintiffs had asserted wrongful death claims against the codefendant doctors. Lastly, the court stated that since plaintiffs had notice of the codefendants' Statute of Limitations defenses, they should have moved to strike those defenses, and cannot claim prejudice by the hospital's belated amendment.
Leave to amend pleadings is to be freely given absent prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay (CPLR 3025[b]; see, Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935, 408 N.Y.S.2d 314, 380 N.E.2d 146; Seda v. New York City Housing Authority, 181 A.D.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles v. Suvannavejh
...newly proposed pleadings have caused defendants to conduct disclosure that is now unnecessary. See Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 270, 271, 658 N.Y.S.2d 618 (1st Dep't 1997). Even if plaintiff's new pleadings allege a new claim or theory of liability or recovery not found in he......
-
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC
...Dep't 2006) ; Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d at 377, 720 N.Y.S.2d 487 ; Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 270, 271, 658 N.Y.S.2d 618 (1st Dep't 1997). To show prejudice from the delay, plaintiff must demonstrate that the delay has hindered the prepar......
-
Glynos v. Dorizas
...A.D.3d 207, 208 (1st Dep't 2006); Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d at 377; Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 270, 271 (1st Dep't 1997). To show prejudice from the delay, plaintiff must demonstrate that the delay has hindered the preparation of support ......
-
Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n v. Cnty. of Nassau
...significant prejudice from the County's delay in asserting the statute of limitations as a defense (see Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 270, 658 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; Cameron v. 1199 Housing Corp., 208 A.D.2d 454, 617 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; Fulford v. Baker Perkins, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 861, 474 N......