NY Appellate Court Dismisses Petition for Site Plan Approval for Failure to Name a Necessary Party

This post was authored by Samantha M. Davis, Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

In Matter of Wood v. Village of Painted Post, 216 A.D.3d 1465, 1466-67 (4th Dept. 2023), the Fourth Department held that the relation back doctrine does not apply to mistakes of law where a party in an action fails to name a legally required party to that action.

The Painted Post Planning Board granted a site plan approval to Tyoga Container Co for the “construction and operation of a warehouse and trucking distribution facility.” The site was located in the Village of Painted Post and the parcel was owned by Painted Post Development LLC (“PPD). However, the owner, PPD, was not named as one of the respondents in this petition. The petitioners then sought leave to amend the petition to add the respondent PPD, to the petition. Respondents cross moved to dismiss the petition for failure to join a necessary party.

The trial court granted respondents’ motion, and petitioners appealed and argued that although PPD was the owner of the parcel, they were not a necessary party. Even if PPD did enter into a contract for the sale of the parcel to Tyoga, they were still the parcel’s title owner at the time the application was made, and are thus a necessary party.

Petitioners were also required to commence an Article 78 proceeding against PPD within 30 days of the Board’s decision having been filed with the village clerk, however petitioners failed to do so, and the statute of limitations ran. In response to this oversight, petitioners argued that the relation back doctrine should apply in their failure to add PPD as a necessary party after the statute of limitations had expired.

In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, the petitioner had the burden of proving that:

 (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the [petitioner] as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well.

The petitioner’s failure to appreciate PPD as a necessary party as the lot’s title owner does not satisfy the elements needed in order to invoke the relation back doctrine.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division Fourth Department upheld the trial court’s dismissal of petitioners’ amended petition.

Matter of Wood v. Village of Painted Post, 216 A.D.3d 1465 (4th Dept. 2023).