Matias v. Rebecca's Bakery
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.