Opinion
2001-10598
Argued October 24, 2002.
November 25, 2002.
In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated November 9, 2001, which granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss her counterclaims, and denied her cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer and counterclaim adding additional counterclaim defendants.
Johnson Cohen, LLP, Pearl River, N.Y. (Mark S. Paige of counsel), for appellant.
Steinberg Cavaliere, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Ronald W. Weiner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In January 1999 the plaintiff, a professional corporation, commenced the instant action to recover legal fees. The defendant subsequently sought leave to amend her answer and her counterclaims to recover damages for legal malpractice against the professional corporation, to include Debra S. Bereck, individually, David Isaacson, and Isaacson Bereck as additional defendants. The law firm of Isaacson Bereck had represented the defendant in an underlying action for a divorce and ancillary relief.
The applicable statute of limitations expired (see CPLR 214), and the additional counterclaim defendants can be joined in the action only if the relation-back doctrine applied (see Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173, 177). The relation-back doctrine does not apply to the present case. The defendant failed to adequately explain why she did not include the proposed counterclaim defendants in a timely manner, although she was aware that they had represented her in the underlying action (see Mondello v. New York Blood Ctr. — Greater N.Y. Blood Program, 80 N.Y.2d 219, 226; Matter of Karmel v. White Plains Common Council, 284 A.D.2d 464, 465). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's cross motion for leave to amend her answer and counterclaims, and properly granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims (cf. Somer Wand v. Rotondi, 251 A.D.2d 567, 568-569).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and MASTRO, JJ., concur.