Opinion
October 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The allegations in the complaint establish a jural relationship between the defendant Dr. Asnis and the defendant hospital such that the latter may be vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the former (see, Connell v. Hayden, 83 A.D.2d 30, 48). Moreover, contrary to Dr. Asnis's contention, there are no defenses vis-a-vis the plaintiffs to the claims asserted against him of which he is possessed and the hospital is not (see, Connell v. Hayden, supra, at 48-49; Kladek v. St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Center, 128 Misc.2d 985, 988-989). The Supreme Court properly determined that Dr. Asnis and the hospital were united in interest (see, CPLR 203 [b]).
We further reject Dr. Asnis's contention that he should be considered a new or unnamed defendant (see, Brock v. Bua, 83 A.D.2d 61, 69-70) simply because his name was misspelled in the original complaint. In any event, the plaintiffs have established that the misspelling was an excusable mistake (see, Brock v. Bua, supra; cf., Berg v. Mather Mem. Hosp., 131 A.D.2d 618). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.