RAHI v. Michael Sannell, et al., Defendants-Appellants. (1997)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 24, 1996, which, in an action for personal injuries against defendants driver and owner of a vehicle that collided with plaintiff's vehicle, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

 The IAS court correctly held that for purposes of the Statute of Limitations, defendant owner is united in interest with defendant driver (CPLR 203[b], [c];  Jordan v. Westhill Central School Dist., 42 A.D.2d 1043, 348 N.Y.S.2d 620;  cf., Grossman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 178 A.D.2d 323, 578 N.Y.S.2d 135).   Since the action was commenced prior to the effective date of current CPLR 304 and 306-b, timely service of the summons and complaint on the driver constituted timely service on the owner (CPLR 203[b][1] ), and plaintiff's failure to file proof of service until more than three years after the accident was a nonjurisdictional defect that, absent prejudice, could be cured by the granting of leave to file nunc pro tunc (see, Reporter Co. v. Tomicki, 60 A.D.2d 947, 401 N.Y.S.2d 322, lv. dismissed 44 N.Y.2d 791, 406 N.Y.S.2d 41, 377 N.E.2d 485).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.