102 A.D.2d 663 (1984)
A plaintiff’s claim against a third-party defendant, asserted in an amended complaint, relates back to the date of service of the third-party complaint for Statute of Limitations purposes under CPLR 203(e), provided both complaints arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
Summary
This case addresses whether a plaintiff can directly sue a third-party defendant after the statute of limitations has expired, by amending the complaint. The New York Court of Appeals held that the amended complaint relates back to the original third-party complaint’s service date if both arise from the same events. The court reasoned that the third-party defendant already has notice and is participating in the litigation. The decision emphasizes balancing fairness to defendants with allowing plaintiffs to pursue valid claims when the defendant was aware of the potential liability.
Facts
Plaintiff’s husband sued defendants for medical malpractice, alleging failure to diagnose lung cancer. The husband died, and plaintiff amended the complaint to include a wrongful death claim. Defendants then initiated a third-party action against Dr. Greenberg, the husband’s family physician. After Dr. Greenberg’s deposition, plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to directly name him as a defendant, after the statute of limitations had run. The plaintiff argued CPLR 203(e) allowed the claim to relate back to the original complaint.
Procedural History
Special Term initially granted the motion to amend, then reversed itself, citing conflicting Third Department precedent. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, maintaining that a plaintiff cannot assert a direct claim against a third-party defendant after the Statute of Limitations has run. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, certifying the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was correct.
Issue(s)
Whether a plaintiff’s direct claim against a third-party defendant, asserted in an amended complaint, relates back to the date of service of the third-party complaint for Statute of Limitations purposes under CPLR 203(e), where the third-party complaint and the amended complaint are based on the same transaction or occurrence.
Holding
Yes, because when a third-party defendant has been properly served with a third-party complaint and all prior pleadings, they have actual notice of the plaintiff’s potential claim, requiring them to prepare a defense, and thus, an amendment of the complaint may be permitted in the court’s discretion, relating back to the date of the third-party complaint’s service.
Court’s Reasoning
The court addressed a split among the Appellate Divisions regarding amending complaints to add new defendants after the statute of limitations. The court emphasized that the primary purpose of Statutes of Limitations is fairness to the defendant, preventing stale claims where evidence is lost and memories fade. However, this policy is not offended when the new defendant was already aware of the claim. The court distinguished between adding a