As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether claims asserted in an untimely amended pleading related back to a timely original pleading that was filed but never served. The Court (mem.) held that plaintiff’s claims were timely, regardless of the relation-back doctrine.
This case involved a “unique procedural posture.” Plaintiff filed an original complaint within the statute of limitations but never served it; plaintiff then filed an amended complaint pro se, which was served. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on timeliness grounds and for failure to state a claim; however, there was no motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure of service. The Court held that under these “unique” circumstances, the original claims were timely commenced because they were interposed–i.e., filed–within the statutory period, regardless of the date of service. The Court further held that defendants waived any objection to service of the original complaint by failing to raise that defense as a ground for dismissal of the original or the amended complaint.
Return to the case page for Vanyo v. Buffalo Police Benevolent Association, Inc.