You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET...
, ,

THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE; PLAINTIFF IS FREE TO COMMENCE A NEW ACTION WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (A) UPON ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff had not yet been appointed administrator of the estate of her mother, but noted that if she obtains letters of administration within the six-month savings period under CPLR 205(a) a new action may be commenced:

“A personal representative who has received letters of administration of the estate of a decedent is the only party who is authorized to bring a survival action for personal injuries sustained by the decedent and a wrongful death action to recover the damages sustained by the decedent’s distributees on account of his or her death” … . “[T]he statutory requirement of a duly appointed administrator is in the nature of a condition precedent to the right to bring the suit” … . Thus, a “proposed administrator” who has not obtained letters of administration lacks capacity to bring an action to recover damages for personal injuries or wrongful death on behalf of a decedent’s estate … .

… [W]here, as here, a plaintiff lacks the capacity to bring an action to recover damages for personal injuries or wrongful death on behalf of a decedent’s estate because the plaintiff has not been issued letters of administration, the plaintiff may “remedy this defect by obtaining letters of administration within the six-month savings period provided under CPLR 205(a)” … . Estate of Joyce Moore v Nassau Operating Co., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00241, Second Dept 1-21-26

 

You might also like
LACROSSE PLAYER JOGGING AROUND LACROSSE FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL.
LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING FUTURE PARENTAL ACCESS PETITIONS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs’ Failure to Attend Depositions Warranted Dismissal of Complaint
A CONTRACTOR WHICH CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAY BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC (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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS KNOCKED TO THE GROUND BY DEFENDANTS’ DOG; DEFENDANTS... IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE NYC SIDEWALK...