MANNIELLO v. GHADIMI

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

There is no merit to the appellant`s contention that the first cause of action insofar as asserted on behalf of Land Design Associates, P.C., is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The appellant engaged in a continuous course of business with both the former Land Design Associates, P.C., and its successor, Land Design Associates Consulting Group, with regard to the site development of the subject real estate project (see, Pitta v. William Leggio Architects, 259 A.D.2d 681; Board of Mgrs. of Ocean Club at Long Beach Condominium v. Mandel, 235 A.D.2d 382; Hauppauge Union Free School Dist. v. Smith Assocs., 216 A.D.2d 354; Greater Johnstown City School Dist. v. Cataldo Waters Architects, 159 A.D.2d 784). Notably, the plaintiffs Robert Manniello and Robert Brown were the principals of both businesses. Indeed, it is clear that the two entities, Land Design Associates, P.C., and Land Design Associates Consulting Group, are effectively united in interest such that their claims stand together (see, Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173; Brock v. Bua, 83 A.D.2d 61). Thus, the action was timely commenced on behalf of Land Design Associates, P.C., as measured from the completion of performance by Land Design Associates Consulting Group.

Furthermore, affording the Lien Law its appropriately liberal construction to protect the beneficial interests of lienors (see, East Coast Mines Materials Corp. v. Golf Course Prop. Co., 228 A.D.2d 545) the misidentification of the lienor as "Land Design Associates" on the notice of mechanic's lien is a curable defect that does not require dismissal of the lien (see, Peachy v. First 97-101 Reade St. Assocs., 180 A.D.2d 474).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.