You are here: / / MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR...
,

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to substitute plaintiff’s daughter, as administratrix, for the deceased plaintiff in an action because the delay in seeking substitution was not explained, the merits of the action were not described, and the presumption of prejudice was not rebutted. But the Second Department noted that the action should not have been dismissed because the plaintiff’s stayed all proceedings pending substitution:

CPLR 1021 provides, in part, that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party.” Although a determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity, determinations regarding substitution pursuant to CPLR 1021 are a necessary exception to the general rule, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to consider such a motion … . Here, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider those branches of the motion which were pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute the plaintiff’s daughter as the plaintiff and, upon substitution, to restore the action thereafter (see CPLR 1021). On the merits, we agree with the court’s determination to deny those branches of the motion given the failure to provide any detailed excuse for the delay in seeking substitution, the failure to include an affidavit of merit demonstrating that the claim against Rehab was potentially meritorious, and the failure to rebut Rehab’s claim of prejudice stemming from the delay … .

However, since the plaintiff’s death triggered a stay of all proceedings in the action pending substitution of a legal representative … , the Supreme Court should not have directed dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, as the order was issued after the plaintiff’s death and in the absence of any substitution of a legal representative … . Medlock v Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 2018 NY Slip Op 08922, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

You might also like
Father Demonstrated His Loss of Employment Justified a Downward Modification of Child Support
Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)
HERE, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL ACTION WAS TIMELY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION IN CPLR 205(A), THE SECOND ACTION, COMMENCED AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST FOR LACK OF STANDING, CAN BE DEEMED TIMELY UNDER A SECOND CPLR 205(A) SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION (SECOND DEPT).​ ​
Plaintiff Bicyclist Entitled to Summary Judgment—Defendant Driver Made a Left Turn into a Parking Lot When Plaintiff Was Riding in Oncoming Lane
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
No Evidence Release Invalidated by Fraud or Duress
Criteria for Contractual Indemnification Explained
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRIES BEFORE DETERMINING NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; MOTHER AND CHILD WERE IN CONNECTICUT, FATHER RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS NO PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS... FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE IT TO GRANT FATHER’S...