EILEEN SEGAL v. RECOVERY AT THE CROSSROADS (L-1434-19, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3745-20

On December 7, 2017, plaintiff Eileen Segal was seriously injured in Brooklyn when third-party defendant Michael Gitelis assaulted her and struck her with a car after being discharged AMA from defendants’ outpatient facility.
Segal sued the Crossroad defendants on December 3, 2019 (within the limitations period), alleging they failed to screen/involuntarily commit or contact police despite obvious danger posed by Gitelis.
The Crossroad defendants obtained leave to file a third-party complaint against Gitelis; after procedural delay and reinstatement, Gitelis filed an answer and an affirmative counterclaim on April 1, 2021 asserting the Crossroads’ negligence in discharging and failing to commit him.
The Crossroad defendants moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Gitelis’s counterclaim as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
The trial judge denied summary judgment, holding Gitelis’s counterclaim "relates back" to Segal’s timely complaint under Rules 4:7-1 and 4:9-3 because it is germane (arises from the same conduct/occurrence).
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the counterclaim is germane and that material factual disputes preclude summary judgment.

Issue	Segal's Argument	Crossroads' Argument	Held
Whether Gitelis’s counterclaim, filed after the limitations period, "relates back" to Segal’s timely complaint under R. 4:9-3 because it is germane	Segal’s timely complaint alleged the same failure-to-screen/discharge facts that gave rise to Gitelis’s counterclaim	Counterclaim is an affirmative/new claim, not "germane," so it is barred by the 2-year statute of limitations	Affirmed: counterclaim relates back as germane to the original complaint and is not time-barred
Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the statute-of-limitations defense	Under relation-back, counterclaim is timely; factual issues remain	No relation-back; move to dismiss should be granted as time-barred	Denied: genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment inappropriate

Molnar v. Hedden, 260 N.J. Super. 133 (App. Div. 1992) (applied relation-back doctrine to germane counterclaims)
Molnar v. Hedden, 138 N.J. 96 (1994) (Supreme Court reversed on other grounds and left relation-back question open where no proper factual support existed)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard and view of facts in favor of non-moving party)
Branch v. Cream-O-Land, 244 N.J. 567 (2021) (de novo review of summary judgment rulings)
Martinez v. Cooper Hosp. Univ. Med. Ctr., 163 N.J. 45 (2000) (two-year limitations period for personal-injury/medical-malpractice claims)