made after the statute of limitations has run relates back to the date of the original pleading if, inter alia, “the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B); see also Slayton v. Am. Express Co., 460 F.3d 215, 228 (2d Cir.2006) (“For a newly added action to relate back, the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, the failure to intercede claim clearly arose out of the conduct set out in the Third Amended Complaint, and therefore relates back for the purpose of the statute of limitations. See Stevelman v. Alias Research Inc., 174 F.3d 79, 86-87 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 2. Summary Judgment As there are material
holding that a demand for jury trial should be denied if the issues in the original complaint and the amended complaint turn on the same matrix of facts holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action holding original complaint was admission where it alleged an accident occurred on a different date than the amended complaint