## Facts

- Robert and Arlene Buran owned Lake Champlain property with deeded rights extending into the lake.
- Neighboring owners John and Janet Coupal built a concrete seawall in 1973 that extended across the property line and into the lake over the Burans’ claimed area.
- In 1979, the Burans sued John Coupal for trespass and related relief but did not name Janet.
- In 1982, John asserted that he and Janet owned the property as tenants by the entirety and argued the case should be dismissed for failure to join her.
- After raising non-joinder, John and Janet transferred title to a closely held corporation they controlled and later reconveyed it to themselves.
- In 1989, the Burans filed a second action naming both John and Janet; the Coupals argued the claim against Janet was time-barred and asserted adverse possession.
- The consolidated actions were tried to a jury; the trial court rejected adverse possession and ordered removal of the seawall and restoration of the Burans’ land.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the 1989 pleading adding Janet related back to the 1979 filing.

## Issues

1. Whether an amended pleading adding a new defendant “united in interest” with an original defendant relates back under CPLR 203 only if the plaintiff shows an “excusable mistake,” or whether a mistake alone satisfies the doctrine when other elements are met.
2. What elements must be shown for relation back when a plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant after the statute of limitations has run.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that relation back under CPLR 203 requires a showing of mistake, not “excusable” mistake, when adding a defendant united in interest with an originally named defendant.
- The court concluded the 1989 complaint adding Janet related back to the 1979 complaint and was timely.
- The court left undisturbed the judgment ordering removal of the seawall and restoration of the Burans’ property and rejecting adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- An amended pleading adding a new defendant relates back to the original filing date if:
  - the claims arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence;
  - the new defendant is united in interest with the original defendant such that notice of the action may be imputed; and
  - the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for the plaintiff’s mistake as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the new defendant.
- CPLR 203’s relation-back doctrine does not impose a separate requirement that the plaintiff’s mistake be “excusable.”
- The analysis focuses on fair notice and absence of prejudice to the party to be added, rather than pleading technicalities.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff seeking relation back when adding a united-in-interest defendant must show a mistake about the proper party’s identity, but need not prove the mistake was excusable; because the unity-of-interest and notice elements were satisfied, the added claim was timely and the judgment for removal of the encroaching seawall was affirmed.


Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y. 1995)