Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.).
The IAS Court properly allowed plaintiff to amend the caption so as to substitute Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. as party-defendant in place of Chase Manhattan Banking Corporation, also known as Chase Manhattan National Corporation, in view of the evidence, including an offer of settlement from Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. and service of process upon an agent who was authorized to accept service on behalf of both entities, that Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. was, or should have been, apprised of the pending action and the absence of any evidence that Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. would otherwise be prejudiced by the amendment (CPLR 305 [c]; see, Simpson v. Kenston Warehousing Corp., 154 A.D.2d 526; Lunn v Holiday Corp., 167 A.D.2d 818, after remand 181 A.D.2d 1037).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.