Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation-Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”)[1], which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’”

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Minihane v. Brown , 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01505 (2d Dept. Mar. 18, 2026), the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed when the statute of limitations begins to run on a demand promissory note. The defendant borrowed $19,000 pursuant to a note that provided repayment was due only upon written demand, which could be made no earlier than January 1, 2015. Although the lender did not make a demand until September 2023, the borrower argued that the six

By Jonathan H. Freiberger On March 17, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Nicholas , a mortgage foreclosure action that addresses many of the issues raised in our prior BLOG articles. HSBC involves the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”), and the statute of limitations in foreclosure actions. By way of brief background, FAPA went into effect in December of 2022, and “represents the Legislature’s response to litigation strat

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger This BLOG has written numerous articles addressing statutes of limitation.¹ Today’s article discusses Mark v. Trimarco , a case decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on February 4, 2026, in which the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to breathe new life into an otherwise expired limitations period to sue on a promissory note. The statute of limitations on a promissory note is six years. CPLR 213(2) ; see also Carpenito v. Linksman ,

On January 28, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Starr, a mortgage foreclosure action that addresses many of the issues raised in our prior BLOG articles.

In BH 336 Partners LLC v. Sentinel Real Estate Corp., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00305 (1st Dept. Jan. 22, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order denying in part a motion to dismiss a complaint containing fraud and fraudulent‑inducement claims arising from Plaintiffs’ purchases of five Manhattan buildings.

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ It’s Unanimous – The Fourth Department Joins the Other Departments and Confirms the Retroactive Application of FAPA ,” we again discussed FAPA and noted that on November 25, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals decided two cases: Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank , and Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Court determined that retroactive application of FAPA’s provisions passes constitutional muster und

Today’s article is about MCLP Asset Co. v. Zaveri, an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation.

In today’s article, we examine Hofman v. Braun, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 34102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Oct. 24, 2025), a case addressing the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and the continuous wrong doctrine.

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”), which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’"”

It is well-settled that leave to amend a pleading is to be freely granted. Leave may be denied, however, if the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, or if it would cause undue prejudice to a party. Amendments that seek to add a time-barred claim or party will be found to be patently devoid of merit, unless the untimeliness can be saved by application of the relation-back doctrine.

Under the relation-back doctrine, new parties may be joined as defendants in a previously commenced action, after the statute of limitations has expired on the claims against them. The doctrine is codified in CPLR 203.