Opinion
October 28, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).
In this subrogation action, the court properly found that the purported amendment to the ad damnum clause was an attempt by the insurer-subrogee to assert the time-barred claim of the insured, the nominal plaintiff herein. Nor can the claim be deemed to "relate back" (CPLR 203 [f]; see, Brock v. Bua, 83 A.D.2d 61, 69) since the parties are not united in interest (see, Connell v Hayden, 83 A.D.2d 30, 40), the original pleading did not give notice of the claim, and no reasonable excuse for the delay in asserting the claim was offered.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.