Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to include a direct cause of action against the appellant is denied.
The Supreme Court erred in allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a direct cause of action against the appellant. Even with the benefit of the relation back provision of CPLR 203 (f), the plaintiff's claim against the appellant, which is subject to a three-year limitation period ( see, CPLR 214), was untimely when the third-party action against the appellant for contribution was commenced ( see, CPLR 214; Liverpool v. Arverne Houses, 67 N.Y.2d 878; Dormitory Auth. v. Baker, Jr., of N.Y., 218 A.D.2d 515, 516; cf., Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 473).
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.