Majority
No basis exists to disturb the traverse court’s finding that both defendant and its principal were properly served within the statute of limitations (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490 , 495 [1992]). Leave to amend so as to correct defendant’s name was properly granted absent a showing that defendant was prejudiced by the misnomer (CPLR 305 [c]). Leave to amend so as to add defendant’s principal as a defendant was properly granted upon a showing of need to pierce the corporate veil. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Cases cited
- Thoreson v. Penthouse International, Ltd. 80 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 157