A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of Crossbay Associates, LLC, allowing the company to amend its lawsuit against engineers involved in a property damage case. The decision, made on June 24, 2026, affects the liability of the engineers for excavation work that allegedly caused damage to Crossbay's property. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the application of the relation-back doctrine in legal claims.
The case, Crossbay Associates, LLC v. Singh, was filed under docket number 2024-04164. It centers around a dispute involving property damage that occurred in November 2018 when excavation work was performed on a neighboring property owned by the Singh family. The excavation allegedly led to a portion of Crossbay's building collapsing, prompting the company to seek damages for the injury to its real property.
Crossbay Associates initially filed a lawsuit against the Singh defendants—Inderpal Singh, Sarbjit Singh, Mike Singh, and Tejinder Singh—as well as AT-SAF, Inc., a general contractor linked to the Singh family. The amended complaint included allegations of negligence and gross negligence against these defendants. In November 2022, Crossbay sought to amend its complaint to add Rizwan Abdus Salam P.E. Consulting Engineer, P.C., and Rizwan Abdus Salam as defendants, claiming they were responsible for providing necessary support for the excavation work.
The Supreme Court of Queens County, however, denied Crossbay's request to add the engineers as defendants, leading to the appeal. The court ruled that the proposed defendants were not united in interest with the original defendants regarding the claims of negligence and gross negligence, which prompted Crossbay to challenge this decision.
The appellate court modified the lower court's ruling, stating, "the plaintiff satisfied the three-part test for the applicability of the relation-back doctrine with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence." The judges on the panel included Colleen D. Duffy, Deborah A. Dowling, Barry E. Warhit, and Susan Quirk.
The court explained that the relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has expired, provided certain conditions are met. In this case, the court found that the claims against the proposed defendants arose from the same conduct as the original claims and that they were united in interest with the original defendants.
Despite allowing the addition of the engineers for the negligence claims, the court upheld the denial of Crossbay's request to add them for a strict liability claim. The court noted that the proposed defendants were neither the owners of the adjacent property nor the contractor who performed the excavation work, which meant they could have different defenses related to strict liability.
The ruling is important as it clarifies the legal standards for amending complaints in property damage cases. It highlights the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate that all parties involved share a common interest in the claims being made, particularly when seeking to add new defendants after the statute of limitations has passed.
This decision could have broader implications for future cases involving property damage and excavation work in New York. It emphasizes the importance of properly identifying all responsible parties in a lawsuit and the legal framework that governs the addition of defendants.
Looking ahead, Crossbay Associates may continue to pursue its claims against the newly added defendants in the lower court. The appellate court's ruling allows the case to move forward with the amended complaint, potentially increasing the chances of recovering damages for the alleged property damage.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the defendants plan to appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending. However, the ruling sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the relation-back doctrine and the amendment of complaints in property damage litigation.