Johanson v. Cnty. of Erie
| Citation | 22 N.Y.S.3d 763,134 A.D.3d 1530 |
| Parties | Faye JOHANSON, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Adam Murr, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ERIE and Erie County Sheriff's Department, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 2015 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
134 A.D.3d 1530
22 N.Y.S.3d 763
Faye JOHANSON, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Adam Murr, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
COUNTY OF ERIE and Erie County Sheriff's Department, Defendants–Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec. 31, 2015.
Michael A. Siragusa, County Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.
Garvey & Garvey, Buffalo (Matthew J. Garvey of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of Adam Murr (decedent). Decedent committed suicide while he was in custody at the Erie County Holding Center (Holding Center). Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendants were negligent in failing to assess and screen inmates to determine the level of supervision and intervention necessary to prevent suicides at the Holding Center, and in failing to provide decedent with adequate supervision.
After the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to an action against a sheriff (see CPLR 215[1] ), plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add Timothy Howard in his official capacity as Sheriff of Erie County (Sheriff) as a defendant. Supreme Court erred in granting the motion, inasmuch as plaintiff failed to establish that her claims against the
Sheriff relate back to her claims against defendants (see generally CPLR 203[b] ; Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173, 177–178, 638 N.Y.S.2d 405, 661 N.E.2d 978 ). In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must establish that "(1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant[s], and by reason of that relationship can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dacosta v. City of N.Y.
...as a defendant." Id. at 1194, 960 N.Y.S.2d 793.Following Kirk , the Fourth Department affirmed this interpretation of mistake in Johanson v. County of Erie . It held that "the third prong [of the relation back test] [was] satisfied" where a plaintiff moved to add a sheriff to a wrongful dea......
-
Prezioso v. Cnty. of Niagara
...Department, inasmuch as the County is not vicariously liable for the acts of the Sheriff (see Johanson v. County of Erie , 134 A.D.3d 1530, 1531, 22 N.Y.S.3d 763 [4th Dept. 2015] ), and the Sheriff's Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County (see id. at 1531-1532, 2......
-
Jones v. Seneca Cnty.
...are united in interest, and thus plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine (see Johanson v. County of Erie, 134 A.D.3d 1530, 1530–1531, 22 N.Y.S.3d 763 ; Trisvan, 26 A.D.3d at 876, 809 N.Y.S.2d 369 ; see generally CPLR 203[c] ; Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173, 17......
-
May v. Buffalo Mri Partners, L.P.
...for the acts of the other’ "(De Sanna v. Rockefeller Ctr., Inc., 9 A.D.3d 596, 598, 780 N.Y.S.2d 651 ; see Johanson v. County of Erie, 134 A.D.3d 1530, 1531, 22 N.Y.S.3d 763 ; Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. LaBarge Bros. Co., Inc., 81 A.D.3d 1294, 1296, 916 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). Dr. Gopal contends that, e......