1. Introduction

This personal-injury motor vehicle action arose from an April 14, 2017 collision between plaintiff Alfredo Cotto and a rental vehicle driven by defendant Dwayne W. Robinson. The rental vehicle was alleged to be owned by EAN Holdings, LLC and ELRAC, LLC (the “ELRAC defendants”), affiliates/subsidiaries of nonparty Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

The litigation developed along two tracks:

• Rental-company liability: Whether the ELRAC defendants could be held vicariously liable for Robinson’s driving despite the federal Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106).
• Late-added employer: After the limitations period expired, plaintiff sought to add Securitas Electronic Security, Inc. (“Securitas”) upon learning in deposition that Robinson allegedly worked for Securitas at the time of the crash. The issue became whether the amended complaint against Securitas could “relate back” to the timely original pleading.

The Supreme Court (Kings County) dismissed the ELRAC defendants on summary judgment and dismissed Securitas as time-barred. The Second Department affirmed.

2. Summary of the Opinion

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Result)

A. Law of the Case (binding effect within the same litigation)

• U.S. Bank N.A. v Moss and Brownrigg v New York City Hous. Auth.
  These cases supply the core formulation: law of the case prevents re-litigation of legal issues already decided earlier in the same proceeding. The Second Department used them to frame why the October 20, 2022 Graves-Amendment ruling controlled later motion practice against the ELRAC defendants.
• Erickson v Cross Ready Mix, Inc.
  Cited for the limiting principle: law of the case applies only to legal determinations necessarily resolved on the merits and to the same questions in the same case. This supported the conclusion that the earlier Graves Amendment determination was the same legal question being re-presented.
• Citimortgage, Inc. v Pierce
  Used to reinforce that an unappealed prior determination can operate as law of the case in subsequent stages, especially when the later pleading does not materially change the factual allegations relevant to the earlier ruling.
• Irizarry v Rosselli and Vehifax Corp. v Georgilis
  These decisions clarify appellate discretion: an appellate court is not strictly bound by law of the case and may reach the merits anyway. The Second Department acknowledged that discretion but declined to exercise it here.
• Matter of Simpson v Cyrius and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v North Shore Signature Homes, Inc.
  Cited as examples supporting the court’s choice to refrain from revisiting merits when law of the case applies and circumstances do not warrant discretionary review—especially where a party did not appeal the earlier order.

B. Statute of Limitations and Relation-Back (adding a new defendant after time expires)

• Marcotrigiano v Dental Specialty Assoc., P.C.
  This is the opinion’s central relation-back authority, quoted for (i) the defendant’s prima facie burden on a limitations motion under CPLR 3211(a)(5), (ii) the three-part test for relation-back, and (iii) the concept that relation-back corrects pleading “errors” after limitations has run.
• Williams v Ideal Food Basket, LLC
  Cited with procedural references to confirm the limitations analysis and support dismissal where a new defendant is added after the statutory period.
• Fitzpatrick v City of New York
  Used twice: first, for the burden-shifting principle once the new defendant proves the claim is time-barred; and second, for the requirement that the newly added party must have known or should have known within the relevant period that it was the intended defendant.
• Wilson v Rye Family Realty, LLC
  Cited as an additional articulation of the three-prong relation-back test.
• Bisono v Mist Enters., Inc. and Marrone v Miloscio
  These cases supported the court’s conclusion that the “united in interest” prong can be satisfied where an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee acting within the scope of employment—here, Securitas (employer) and Robinson (employee).
• Patterson v Nassau County Social Servs. Dept. and Flederbach v Fayman
  These cases reinforced a key point: relation-back fails where the plaintiff cannot show the new defendant had awareness (or reason to be aware) of the accident and/or action within the limitations period such that it should have known it was an intended target.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. The ELRAC defendants: Law of the case after an unappealed Graves Amendment ruling

The Supreme Court had already determined (October 20, 2022) that the ELRAC defendants were “shielded from vicarious liability by the Graves Amendment” and were not otherwise liable. Plaintiff did not appeal that order.

When plaintiff later amended the complaint to add Securitas, the ELRAC defendants moved again for summary judgment. The Second Department held that the prior Graves Amendment determination was law of the case and therefore controlled, because the amended complaint did not add new facts specific to the ELRAC defendants that could alter the earlier legal conclusion.

Importantly, the court noted it had discretion to revisit the merits despite law of the case, but declined—effectively treating plaintiff’s failure to appeal the earlier dispositive ruling as a litigation-ending event for ELRAC absent genuinely new allegations.

B. Securitas: Relation-back fails on the “knew or should have known” prong

The court applied the standard limitations framework under CPLR 3211(a)(5) and CPLR 214(5): Securitas established that the amended complaint was filed after the three-year period ran from April 14, 2017.

That shifted the burden to plaintiff to show relation-back. The court found:

• Prong 1 (same occurrence): satisfied, because all claims arose from the same car accident.
• Prong 2 (united in interest): satisfied, because Securitas and Robinson were aligned through potential vicarious liability (employee acting within scope).
• Prong 3 (new party knew/should have known but for mistake): not satisfied, because plaintiff provided no evidence that Securitas was aware of the accident—much less the lawsuit—within the limitations period, and no evidence tied Securitas to notice of damage to the rental vehicle (rented in Robinson’s name).

The court’s key move is evidentiary: even if plaintiff plausibly “didn’t know” the employer’s identity until deposition, relation-back still demands proof that the newly added defendant had a timely basis to understand it was the intended defendant. Without that, the amendment is time-barred.

3.3 Impact

A. Pleading strategy and early investigation in auto cases involving employment

Cotto signals that learning the correct employer through post-limitations discovery is not, by itself, enough to invoke relation-back. Plaintiffs should aggressively investigate employment relationships early (e.g., FOIL requests where applicable, employer identification through pre-suit inquiry, early subpoenas, targeted interrogatories) to avoid having relation-back hinge on proving the employer’s timely notice.

B. Relation-back against employers: “united in interest” is not the hard part; notice is

The decision underscores a practical reality in employer/employee cases: courts may readily find unity of interest where respondeat superior is alleged, but will still dismiss if the plaintiff cannot show the employer had timely reason to know it was the intended party.

C. Graves Amendment + law of the case: finality within the case

For rental companies, the case confirms that once a Graves Amendment dismissal is decided on the merits and not appealed, later amendments that do not materially change allegations against the rental entities are unlikely to reopen that door; law of the case will often foreclose further litigation against the lessor.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106): A federal statute generally preventing rental/leasing companies from being held vicariously liable solely because they own the vehicle, absent their own negligence or wrongdoing.
• Vicarious liability / respondeat superior: A rule making an employer liable for an employee’s negligence committed within the scope of employment.
• Law of the case: A doctrine that, within the same case, treats an earlier legal ruling as settled for later stages—promoting consistency and preventing re-argument of the same legal question.
• Summary judgment: A decision without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• CPLR 3211(a)(5): The procedural device to dismiss a claim as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Relation-back doctrine: A rule allowing a late amendment to “relate back” to a timely complaint, but only if the three prongs are met—especially that the new defendant knew or should have known it was the intended target within the limitations period.
• United in interest: A relationship so aligned (often via vicarious liability) that notice to one defendant can, in principle, be imputed to the other—yet this does not eliminate the separate requirement that the new party had reason to know it was the intended defendant.

5. Conclusion

Cotto v Robinson delivers two practice-critical lessons. First, an unappealed Graves Amendment ruling can become law of the case and bar renewed efforts to keep rental-company defendants in the action where the amended pleading adds no new, case-changing facts. Second, even when an employer is “united in interest” with an employee and the claim arises from the same accident, relation-back will fail unless the plaintiff can show the newly added employer knew or should have known—within the limitations period—that it was the intended defendant. The decision thus tightens the practical demands of late-party amendments: diligence in identifying the correct employer early, and evidence of timely notice, are decisive.