For purposes of the statute of limitations, defendant dentist was united in interest with the timely-served defendant dental practice (CPLR 203 [c]). 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 to new defendants who are sought to be added to an action after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations (see e.g. Rahi
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
ALAMO v. CITIDENT, INC.
2537, 301876/08
72 A.D.3d 498 (2010)
899 N.Y.S.2d 39
GUADALUPE ALAMO, Respondent, v. CITIDENT, INC., et al., Defendants, and PATRICIA PHIPPS, D.D.S., D.M.D., et al., Appellants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided April 13, 2010.
Decided April 13, 2010.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
