Tymoshenko v Levitansky

Holding The court reversed the lower court’s order, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint because it contained no factual allegations against her. The court also denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint because the relation-back doctrine was inapplicable and the new claims were time-barred.

The court’s words

conclusory allegations—claims consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity—are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss

2026 NY Slip Op 05988, at the official text

there were no allegations in the amended complaint concerning acts or omissions committed by her, and no allegations from which a cause of action against her could be inferred

2026 NY Slip Op 05988, at the official text

The relation-back doctrine is inapplicable where the original allegations did not provide the defendant notice of the need to defend against the allegations of the amended complaint

2026 NY Slip Op 05988, at the official text

neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint provided the defendant with notice of the need to defend against the allegations of the second amended complaint

2026 NY Slip Op 05988, at the official text