Court Opinion

ID: 9945534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:17.296365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.537539
License: Public Domain

Tabas v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 30549(U)
                    February 21, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157809/2021
                  Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04:57 P~                                                                    INDEX NO. 157809/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:                             HON. HASA A. KINGO                               PART                             05M
                                                            Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          157809/2021
             ALVARO TABAS,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         08/24/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         004
                                                 - V -

             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, OFFICER BERALTAL                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
            47,48,49,50,51,52,55,56,57,58,59,60
            were read on this motion to/for                                                AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

                    With the instant motion, plaintiff ALVARO TABAS ("plaintiff') seeks to amend the
            caption in this action due to the current caption's failure to make clear the true spelling of a named
            officer's legal name. No support is provided as the basis for the amendment sought. In opposition,
            defendant CITY OF NEW YORK ("defendant") takes no position on plaintiff being granted leave
            to amend the caption as it applies to plaintiffs claims which remain timely, i.e. plaintiffs federal
            claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, against the proposed defendant as the statute of
            limitations had yet to expire at the time of the filing of the instant motion. Rather, defendant
            opposes plaintiffs application seeking amendment as it pertains to all state law claims as the
            statute of limitations has expired with respect to those claims. In opposition, defendant further
            underscores that plaintiff has failed to exercise the required due diligence to timely identify and
            properly name proposed defendant entitling him to the benefits afforded under the "relation back"
            doctrine. Furthermore, defendant argues that the doctrine of "relation back" is not applicable since
            the proposed defendant is not united in interest with defendant and plaintiff cannot establish that
            the officer knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to his
            identity, the action would have been brought against him as well.

                    "Leave to amend pleadings under CPLR § 3025(b) should be freely given and denied only
            if there is prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay or if the proposed amendment is
            palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law" (McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449, 450 [1st
            Dept 2012). In general, a proposed amendment which asserts a claim against a new party that is
            barred by the applicable statute of limitations is "patently devoid of merit" (see e.g., Nossov v
            Hunter Mtn., 185 AD3d 948, 949 [2d Dept 2020]).

                     It is well-established that a party seeking to invoke the relation back doctrine must establish
            that: first, the claims arose out of the same conduct, transactions, or occurrence; second, that the
            new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and will not suffer prejudice due to lack
            of notice; third, that the new party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff
             157809/2021 T ABAS, ALVARO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                                Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 004

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04:57 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 157809/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

            as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well
            (Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178, [1995]). Moreover, a movant seeking to apply the relation-
            back doctrine to a later identified "John Doe" defendant, pursuant to CPLR § 1024, also has the
            burden of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party's identity
            prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Diaz v City of New York, 160 AD3d 457,
            457 [1st Dept 2018]; Holmes v City of New York, 132 AD3d 952, 954 [2d Dept 2015]).

                    Here, plaintiff has failed to allege any mistake in identifying the proposed defendant or
            diligent efforts made to ascertain the identity of the proposed defendant within the applicable
            statute oflimitations (Crawford v City of NY, 129 AD3d 554, 555 [1st Dept 2015]). Likewise, all
            state law claims contained in plaintiffs complaint against the proposed defendant are without merit
            because the statute of limitations expired well before the instant motion and plaintiff is therefore
            unable to demonstrate that the proposed defendant is united in interest with the City, and because
            the proposed defendant has no reason to know he would be named in this lawsuit. Indeed, the
            statute oflimitations for plaintiffs state law claims expired on February 1, 2022, inclusive of the
            COVID toll.

                    As the state law claims had already run prior to plaintiffs awareness of the identity of the
            proposed defendant, and plaintiff has failed to establish that any diligent efforts made prior to the
            statute running to identify the proposed defendant, plaintiffs instant motion necessarily fails on
            those grounds (Diaz, 160 AD3d at 457, supra).

                    The parties do not dispute that the statute of limitations for plaintiffs state law claims has
            expired. However, under the relation-back doctrine, new parties may be joined as defendants in a
            previously commenced action, even after the statute oflimitations has expired, where the plaintiff
            establishes that: ( 1) the claims against the new defendants arise from the same conduct, transaction,
            or occurrence as the claims against the original defendants; (2) the new defendants are "united in
            interest" with the original defendants, and will not suffer prejudice due to lack of notice; and (3)
            the new defendants knew or should have known that, but for the plaintiffs mistake, they would
            have been included as defendants (Higgins v City of New York, 144 AD3d 511, 512-13 [1st Dept
            2016] [internal citations omitted]; CPLR § 203). In addition, as plaintiff seeks "to apply the relation
            back doctrine to a later identified 'John Doe' defendant, pursuant to CPLR § 1024, [she] also has
            the burden of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party's identity
            prior to the expiration of the statute oflimitations" (McCullough v The City ofNew York, 2019 NY
            Slip Op 34040[U], 2-3 [Sup Ct, NY Cnty 2019] [internal citations omitted]).

                    Here, plaintiff seeks leave to amend the caption to now name a proposed defendant who
            was neither correctly named in the caption, nor described in any specific form throughout the
            original summons and complaint, first filed on August 17, 2021. Indeed, the allegations asserted
            in the summons and complaint by plaintiff only ambiguously asserts in a conclusory fashion
            devoid of any detailed factual allegations that the defendant committed alleged acts of negligence
            and deprivations of his constitutional rights. Specifically, there is no indication as to who "Officer
            Beraltal" may be, whether male or female, no physical description of same, no details as to height
            and weight approximation, hair color and length, ethnicity, and/or color of skin as to potentially
            distinguish and identity him. Thus, plaintiff has failed to sufficiently describe the officer in the
            complaint to fairly apprise same that he was the intended defendant. In addition, counsel failed to

             157809/2021 T ABAS, ALVARO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                              Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 004

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04:57 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 157809/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

            provide an affidavit stating that a diligent inquiry had been made to determine the names of such
            parties (see Volpe v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398 [2d Dept 1995]).

                    Similarly, plaintiff has failed to show that they are entitled to substitute the officer pursuant
            to the "relation back" doctrine. Among other things, here, the proposed defendant could not be
            expected to have notice that an action would have been brought against him simply because he
            was allegedly involved in some form in the subject incident (see Caselli v. City of New York, 105
            AD2d 251 [2d Dept 1984 ]). Indeed, Mere involvement in the arrest alone cannot create knowledge
            of any wrongdoing nor does it automatically impute knowledge of the existence of a subsequent
            personal injury lawsuit against an individual. There is no evidence that the proposed defendant
            should have known that he was going to be sued. In fact, plaintiff does not even allege that the
            officer knew or should have known of the pending action.

                    Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet the conditions to justify plaintiffs motion seeking
            leave to amend the caption as the statute oflimitations has run on the state law claims and plaintiff
            has made no showing that a late amendment should be permitted under the "relation back"
            doctrine.

                   Notwithstanding, the amendment is granted, unopposed, as it relates to plaintiffs federal
            claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that plaintiffs motion is granted only to the extent that plaintiff is granted
            leave to amend the caption as it relates to plaintiffs federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
            § 1983 only; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the caption relating to plaintiffs federal claims brought pursuant to 42
            U.S.C. §1983 shall read as follows:

                    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                    NEW YORK COUNTY

                    ALVARO TABAS                                                    INDEX NO.: 157809/2021

                    Plaintiff,

                    -against-

                    CITY OF NEW YORK; OFFICER PERALTADEL
                    (SHIELD #967645) AND DOES 1-10, inclusive.

                    Defendant( s)

                    ; and it is further

             157809/2021 TABAS, ALVARO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                 Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 004

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
 !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2024 04: 57 PM!                                                  INDEX NO. 157809/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2024

                     ORDERED that plaintiffs motion is otherwise denied with respect to amending the caption
            as it relates to plaintiffs state law claims barred by the statute of for the reasons stated herein.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    2/21/2024
                      DATE

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             157809/2021 TABAS, ALVARO vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                 Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 004

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]