Alamo v. Citident, Inc.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J.), entered December 26, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint upon defendant Phipps, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For purposes of the statute of limitations, defendant dentist was united in interest with the timely-served defendant dental practice (CPLR 203 [e]). Contrary to defendant Dr. Phipps’ argument, the' language of section 203 (c) and its interpretive case law does not limit applicability of the unity-of-interest rule…