A.A.A.A.A.R. Construction of Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Village of Brewster
149 A.D.3d 1016
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (A.A.A.A.A.R. Construction) alleged property damage from a water main break on August 5, 2005, caused by defendants' excavation at an intersection.
- Plaintiff filed a notice of claim (Oct. 31, 2005) blaming the Village of Brewster for negligence in permitting water to enter its business.
- Complaint commenced in 2006; a bill of particulars served in 2007 described negligence and gross negligence tied to excavation-caused pipe breakage.
- In 2015, with new counsel, plaintiff moved to supplement the bill of particulars to add new theories including a civil RICO claim and other allegations against defendants.
- The Supreme Court denied leave to supplement; plaintiff appealed only that denial.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the proposed supplementary allegations were time-barred and did not relate back to the original pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to supplement bill of particulars to add new RICO and other theories should be granted | Plaintiff sought to add RICO and other claims eight years after original pleadings, asserting new wrongdoing | Defendants argued the new theories were untimely and beyond scope of original pleadings; statutes of limitations had expired | Denied — leave to supplement refused because claims were time-barred and did not relate back |
| Whether supplemental allegations relate back to original pleadings under CPLR 203(f) | Plaintiff implicitly argued new allegations related to same occurrences as original claim | Defendants argued original pleadings gave no notice of the new transactions/occurrences alleged | Held they did not relate back because original pleadings did not provide required notice |
| Whether civil RICO claims were timely when asserted in 2015 | Plaintiff attempted to assert RICO despite delay | Defendants noted 4-year statute of limitations for civil RICO had elapsed | Held RICO claims were time-barred |
| Whether claims against the Village were timely given municipal claim statutes | Plaintiff relied on earlier notice of claim | Defendants relied on General Municipal Law timing (1-year/90-day limitations) | Held municipal limitations had expired; supplementation could not revive them |
Key Cases Cited
- Calamari v. Panos, 131 A.D.3d 1088 (affirming denial of belated supplementation when claims are time-barred)
- Robinson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 89 A.D.3d 497 (limits on amending bill of particulars to assert new theories)
- Hyacinthe v. Edwards, 10 A.D.3d 629 (same)
- Klein v. City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d 1011 (municipal claim timing principles)
- Bosone v. County of Suffolk, 274 A.D.2d 532 (municipal notice/limitations)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (civil RICO statute of limitations)
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (civil RICO claims principles)
- House of Spices (India), Inc. v. SMJ Servs., Inc., 103 A.D.3d 848 (RICO limitations applied)
- Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d 169 (limitations and relation-back analysis)
- Hustedt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Jones, Little & Co., 129 A.D.3d 669 (relation-back requirement under CPLR 203[f])
- Holmes v. Town of Oyster Bay, 82 A.D.3d 1047 (denial of supplementation where new claims lack merit or are time-barred)