Spence v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1999 |
| Citation | 694 N.Y.S.2d 654,264 A.D.2d 601 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | KATHRYN SPENCE, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC., Respondent-Appellant, and COLTON HARTNICK YAMIN & SHERESKY et al., Appellants-Respondents. (And Other Actions.) |
It was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant leave to amend the complaint as to defendant Bear Stearns & Co., in light of the inexcusable delay of 6½ years in seeking to amend, to add the new theory of liability and to increase the ad damnum clause, and the lack of any evidentiary showing of merit (see, Morgan v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 238 AD2d 278, lv dismissed 90 NY2d 935; Clayton Webster Corp. v Bozell & Jacobs, 167 AD2d 145).
Similarly, it was error to allow plaintiff to amend her complaint to add Sheresky and Colton Hartnick as direct defendants. Plaintiff's legal malpractice claims against Sheresky and Colton Hartnick are dependent upon her new cause of action against Bear Stearns. She invokes the relation back doctrine to demonstrate that her claims against these defendants relate back to Bear Stearns' third-party action against them. However, the record reveals that plaintiff's legal malpractice claims were barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations when the third-party action was commenced (CPLR 214 [6]). Plaintiff's malpractice claims do not fall within the relation back doctrine and she may not avoid the time bar by invoking the doctrine (Liverpool v Arverne Houses, 67 NY2d 878; Zamani v Rite Way Bldg. Indus., 254 AD2d 283).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decastro v. Wambua
...5 (1st Dep't 1998). See Sepulveda v. Dayal, 70 A.D.3d 420, 421, 893 N.Y.S.2d 549 (1st Dep't 2010); Spence v. Bear Stearns & Co., 264 A.D.2d 601, 602, 694 N.Y.S.2d 654 (1st Dep't 1999).III. THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED RELIEFA. The Original Petition's Timeliness Petitioner was required to comm......
-
Inter Connection Elec., Inc. v. VII 752 W. End Owner LLC
...Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107, 116 (1st Dep't 1998). See Sepulveda v. Dayal, 70 A.D.3d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 2010); Spence v. Bear Stearns & Co., 264 A.D.2d 601, 602 (1st Dep't 1999). Upon defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant.to C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(1), the court may not rely on ......
-
West 63 Empire Assocs., LLC v. Walker & Zanger, Inc.
...282, 284 (1st Dep't 2000); Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107, 116 (1st Dep't 1998). See Spence v. Bear Stearns & Co., 264 A.D.2d 601, 602 (1st Dep't 1999). First, plaintiff seeks to claim that it was a third party beneficiary of the contract April 11, 2007, between d......
-
Menkes v. Beth Abraham Health Servs.
...282, 284 (1st Dep't 2000); Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107, 116 (1st Dep't 1998). See Spence v. Bear Stearns & Co., 264 A.D.2d 601, 602 (1st Dep't 1999). A. Absence of Prejudice to Defendant When an amended pleading would change an opponent's position or hinder a d......