Opinion
June 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).
The IAS Court correctly held that the error in defendant's notice of dissolution under Business Corporation Law § 1007, in which another, undissolved corporation was named instead of defendant, rendered the notice ineffective to limit defendant's liability to claims brought within the prescribed period, and that defendant, even though dissolved and its assets distributed, can therefore be sued in connection with claims, such as this, that arose prior to its dissolution (Business Corporation Law § 1006 [a] [4]; see, Independent Investor Protective League v Time, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 259, 262-263). We also agree with the IAS Court that to allow amendment of the complaint to allege continuing exposure to lead based paint subsequent to the initial ingestion would cause defendant no prejudice, mere delay being no reason to deny a pleading amendment (see, Alber Inv. Co. v Chatsworth Realty Corp., 186 A.D.2d 92, 93), and the action being in the early stages of disclosure (see, Seda v. New York City Hous. Auth., 181 A.D.2d 469, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 759).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.