You are here: / / THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES A PLAINTIFF MAY TAKE ADVANTANGE...
,

THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES A PLAINTIFF MAY TAKE ADVANTANGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION TO FILE A NEW ACTION (CPLR 205(A)) WHERE THE COMPLAINT IS DISSMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT YET OBTAINED LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the dismissal of a complaint on behalf of a decedent because plaintiff has not yet obtained letters of administration is not on the merits. Therefore a plaintiff can take advantage of the six-month extension to file another action (CPLR 205(a)) every time the complaint is dismissed on that ground:​

CPLR 205(a) provides that, “[i]f an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence . . . within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action.” “Dismissal of an action for lack of capacity to sue is not a dismissal on the merits and, therefore, does not preclude the applicability of the six-month savings period under CPLR 205(a)” … . Where a complaint is dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) for lack of capacity to sue because the plaintiff has not yet obtained letters to administer the decedent’s estate, “there is no restriction on the number of times that a plaintiff may qualify for a six-month statutory grace period” under CPLR 205(a) … .

Here, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) for lack of capacity to sue because the plaintiff had not yet obtained letters to administer the decedent’s estate. Under these circumstances, there is no restriction on the number of times that the plaintiff may qualify for a six-month statutory grace period under CPLR 205(a) … .  Greene v Five Towns Premier Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 05286, Second Dept 9-16-26

Practice Point: Where a complaint is dismissed because plaintiff has not yet obtained letters of administration there is no restriction on the number of times plaintiff can take advantage of the six-month extension to file a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a).​

 

You might also like
NEGLECT STEMMING FROM MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS NOT PROVEN, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence of General Cleaning Practices Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE, DEFENDANT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK OTHER THAN A NEW YORK AGENT OVER WHICH DEFENDANT EXERCISED NO CONTROL AND A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN THE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT.
DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING STEMMING FROM A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED; MOTHER HAD SUCCESSFULLY PARTICIPATED IN MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SINCE THE NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE OLDER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DESIGN DEFECT, FAILURE TO WARN AND IMPLIED WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A “HOVERBOARD” (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MENTAL-HEALTH TREATMENT OF A PEDOPHILE PRIEST WERE NOT PROTECTED BY PRIEST-PENITENT, PHYSICIAN-PATIENT OR PSYCHOLOGIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGES; THE NAMES OF OTHER CHILDREN ABUSED BY THE PRIEST ALLEGED TO HAVE ABUSED PLAINTIFF ARE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

A “CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED” AFFIDAVIT DENYING DEFENDANT RESIDED...