You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...
, ,

DEFENDANT’S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY.

In this foreclosure action, the Second Department determined plaintiff bank's motion for summary judgment should not have been entertained because defendant had died before the motion was brought. The order appealed from was therefore a nullity:

Here, the deceased defendant died before the plaintiff's motion was made and before the order appealed from was issued. The attorney who had represented the deceased defendant prior to his death purportedly took this appeal on behalf of, among others, the deceased defendant. However, since a substitution of parties had not been effected prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, counsel lacked the authority to act for the deceased defendant, and the purported appeal taken on behalf of the deceased defendant must be dismissed … . Furthermore, since no substitution was made prior to the entry of the order appealed from, the order appealed from is a nullity to the extent that it pertains to the deceased defendant, and we vacate so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the deceased defendant … .

Similarly, in this case, since a proper substitution had not been made, the Supreme Court should not have determined the merits of the plaintiff's motion, even to the extent that the plaintiff sought relief against the other defendants … . Aurora Bank FSB v Albright, 2016 NY Slip Op 02307, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/JURISDICTION (DEATH, DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/APPEALS (DEATH, DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)

You might also like
New York Had Jurisdiction to Modify Pennsylvania Support Order
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING, HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY FIRST CONVICTIONS REDUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Deliberately-Caused Collision Was Not An Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Driver Who Caused the Collision—However the Collision Was an Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Victim of the Deliberate Act—Therefore the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement In the Victim’s Policy Kicked In
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER ULTIMATELY PREVAILED AND WAS PROVIDED WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY (TPVA) RECORDS PURSUANT TO ITS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, BECAUSE THE TPVA PERFORMS EXEMPT ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS AS WELL AS NON-EXEMPT PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTIONS THE COUNTY HAD A REASONABLE BASIS FOR INITIALLY WITHHOLDING THE RECORDS; $30,000 ATTORNEY’S-FEES AWARD REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE.
TRIPPING OVER A GAP BETWEEN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRCASE AND THE LANDING IS NOT A GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); RE: LABOR LAW 241(6), THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING COVERS OVER HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIES ONLY TO OPENINGS A WORKER CAN COMPLETELLY FALL THROUGH (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

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY... JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, CONVICTION REVERSED.