HAUCK v. NEW YORK HILTON (2000)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered August 27, 1999, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiff's motion for permission to serve an amended complaint adding Kinney System Inc. as a defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

 The motion court properly permitted plaintiff to serve an amended complaint adding Kinney System, Inc. as a defendant, since the amended complaint's cause of action against Kinney relates back to the original, timely asserted cause of action against defendant New York Hilton (see, CPLR 203 [b];  Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173, 177, 638 N.Y.S.2d 405, 661 N.E.2d 978).   Kinney does not dispute that the claim against it arises out of the same incident underlying plaintiff's claim against Hilton, or that it is “united in interest” with Hilton.   Further, inasmuch as Kinney indisputably had notice of plaintiff's claim, it has not been prejudiced by plaintiff's delay and it is immaterial whether plaintiff's failure originally to name Kinney as a defendant was “excusable” (see, Buran, supra, at 182, 638 N.Y.S.2d 405, 661 N.E.2d 978).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.