69 N.Y.2d 694 (1987)
r
r
To effectuate proper service, the method used must provide notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action, and the “unity of interest” doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations, typically applies only when one defendant’s liability is vicarious.
r
r
Summary
r
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff attempted service on both a doctor and a hospital by serving a single copy of the summons and complaint on the hospital administrator. After an initial attempt at “nail and mail” service on the doctor’s former residence, a duplicate summons and complaint was served on the doctor four years later. The court addressed whether the initial service was effective and whether the “unity of interest” doctrine tolled the statute of limitations for the subsequent service. The Court of Appeals held that the initial service was insufficient and the unity of interest doctrine did not apply because the hospital’s liability was not vicarious, thus the later service was untimely.
r
r
Facts
r
The plaintiff sued a doctor and a hospital for personal injuries allegedly arising from negligent surgery, treatment, and care. The plaintiff served one copy of the summons and complaint on the hospital administrator. Plaintiff attempted “nail and mail” service on the doctor at his former residence. Four years later, after discovery, the plaintiff served a duplicate summons and complaint on the doctor. The doctor asserted lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The hospital unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the derivative claim and part of the direct negligence claim against the hospital. The doctor separately moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the original service was defective and the later service was untimely. Special Term found the original service ineffective but deemed the later service timely due to the “unity of interest” doctrine. The Appellate Division modified, dismissing the complaint against the doctor, holding the hospital and doctor were not united in interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether service of a single copy of the summons and complaint on the hospital administrator constituted valid service on both the hospital and the doctor.
r
2. Whether the hospital and the doctor were “united in interest” such that service on the hospital tolled the statute of limitations for service on the doctor.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because the service of a single summons and complaint on the hospital administrator, without more, did not provide adequate notice to the doctor.
r
2. No, because the hospital’s potential liability was not vicarious, thus the unity of interest doctrine did not apply.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that valid service requires notice