Plaintiff sues defendant as ABC, Esqs. and later finds out that the firm really is ABC, LLP.  What are the consequences and how does one remedy the situation?  One answer is given in Koch v Kyong Min  2011 NY Slip Op 31951(U)  June 29, 2011  Sup Ct, NY County  Judge: Emily Jane Goodman

However, not having properly named the partnership defendant herein is not entirely fatal to Plaintiff. In Lolly v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr. (37 AD3d 428 [2nd Dept 20071), the appellate
court stated the following, in relevant part:  Despite having been incorrectly named aa ‘The Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center” in a prior action … involving the same alleged misconduct, and asserting essentially the same causes of action as those pleaded in the instant complaint, the defendant herein represents that it has, in fact, been defending the prior action, that it has never disclaimed responsibility for the individual employees and residents’ identified in the prior action, and that ’a judgment ultimately entered against The Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center will have the same effect as a judgment entered against The Brookdale
Hospital Medical Center.” Ba sed on these representations, this action was properly dismissed
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (4).  Id., at 428-429 (citations omitted). See also Velez v Union
Sanitordum Assn., Inc. , 64 NY2d 1119 (1985) (affirming dismissal of subsequent action where defendant in a prior action answered that complaint and atated that its name as sued in that action
was the proper entity allegedly responsible for the injuries, and Plaintiff also acknowledges that New York Partnership Law permits abbreviations ‘in addition to the registered name,” and
that it would be possible to amend the pleadings in the Related Action “to Incorporate the contents of this Complaint.“where plaintiff accepted the answer without objection).
 

Here, the record reflects that (I) Raguea & Min, Eaqs., the defendant named in the Related Action, had answered the complaint in that action and is defending that action; accepted the answer in the Related Action; issues of law and fact involving both the Related Action and the instant action; (4) the complaint in the Related Action pleaded causes of action that are essentially the same as in this action; and ( 5 ) the defendant herein has requested that "this action be diamissed as there is prior action pending againat Ragues & Min and no valid excuse to sue the firm once more here on the same grounds."