You are here: / / MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY...
,

MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF WAS A NULLITY, MOTIONS TO DISMISS MADE BY OTHER DEFENDANTS ARGUING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s failure to take timely steps to substitute a representative for a defendant who had died required the dismissal of the complaint against that defendant. A motion to dismiss made by decedent’s former attorney, purportedly on behalf of the decedent, was a nullity and should not have been granted. Motions to dismiss made by the other defendants should have been granted:

​

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” … . The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party… . Although the determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party is an exception to a court’s lack of jurisdiction, here, one of the motions pursuant to CPLR 1021 was made by the former attorney for the decedent purportedly on behalf of the decedent. Since the former attorney lacked the authority to act, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider that motion to dismiss … . Accordingly, so much of the order as granted the motion purportedly made on behalf of the decedent is a nullity.

​

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider the other defendants’ separate motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 1021 and to consider the plaintiffs’ cross motion. CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that substitution of the decedent was not made within a reasonable time. As such, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which were to appoint a representative for the decedent and, upon appointment, substitute the representative for the decedent as a defendant. Given that substitution was not made within a reasonable time, dismissal of the complaint as against the decedent, “the party for whom substitution should have been made” (CPLR 1021), was proper. However, contrary to the court’s determination, CPLR 1021 did not authorize dismissal of the complaint as against any of the other defendants. Vicari v Kleinwaks, 2018 NY Slip Op 00576, Second Dept 1-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUBSTITUTION OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR DECEASED DEFENDANT, MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF WAS A NULLITY, MOTIONS TO DISMISS MADE BY OTHER DEFENDANTS ARGUING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTITUTION OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR DECEASED DEFENDANT MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF WAS A NULLITY, MOTIONS TO DISMISS MADE BY OTHER DEFENDANTS ARGUING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, SUBSTITUTION OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR DECEASED DEFENDANT, MOTION TO DISMISS MADE BY DECEASED DEFENDANT’S FORMER ATTORNEY PURPORTEDLY ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF WAS A NULLITY, MOTIONS TO DISMISS MADE BY OTHER DEFENDANTS ARGUING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Reversed—Defendants Did Not Raise the Defense and Therefore Waived It—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect
PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO SUE UNDER AN INSTALLMENT CONTRACT ALLEGEDLY ASSIGNED TO HIM; THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF RELIED DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT.
Criteria for Standing to Contest Zoning Variances Explained
GRANDMOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MATTER SENT BACK TO FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER GRANDMOTHER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement) Prior to the Expiration of the 10-Year Statutory Period

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY...