Opinion
August 11, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 22, 1996, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated March 6, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 6, 1997, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant Blakel Construction Corporation (hereinafter Blakel) is united in interest with the defendant St. Marks Housing Associates, L.P. for the purposes of the alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 in the amended complaint ( see, Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173; Raschel v. Rish, 69 N.Y.2d 694, 697; Desiderio v. Rubin, 234 A.D.2d 581; Connell v. Hayden, 83 A.D.2d 30, 42-43). The amended complaint therefore relates back to the timely filing of the original complaint with respect to the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 ( see, CPLR 203 [c]; Buran v. Coupal, supra; Mondello v. New York Blood Ctr. — Greater N.Y. Blood Program, 80 N.Y.2d 219; Brock v. Bua, 83 A.D.2d 61), and Blakel's motion to dismiss the amended complaint as untimely was properly denied as to those claims.
Blakel's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.