You are here: / / THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS...
, , ,

THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s (Walter’s) motion to renew in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Walter moved to be substituted as plaintiff. Initially the motion was denied but upon Walter’s motion to renew, the motion was granted:

“A motion for leave to renew . . . shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . However, “[w]hile it may be within the court’s discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation”… . “Thus, the court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion”… . “While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the failure, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse” … .

“If a party dies and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (CPLR 1015[a]). “A motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” … . “If 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” … . “In determining reasonableness, a court should consider the plaintiff’s diligence in seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the action is shown to have potential merit” … . “Even if the plaintiff’s explanation for the delay is not satisfactory, the court may still grant the motion for substitution if there is no showing of prejudice and there is potential merit to the action, in light of the strong public policy in favor of disposing of matters on the merits” … . Tollinchi v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 02554, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: The criteria for a motion to renes, and for a motion to be substituted as a party after the death of a party explained in some depth. Here the motion to renew and the motion to be substituted as a party should have been denied.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, REMITTED FOR A CONTINUED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Constructive Trust Cause of Action Sufficiently Pled/Dismissal “With Prejudice” Not Allowed—Doctrine of Res Judicata Does Not Apply—a Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not On the Merits
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED HOURS AWAY FROM HIS BROOKLYN ATTORNEY AND ATTEMPTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY BEFORE ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT OPENED THE DRIVER’S-SIDE DOOR OF HIS PARKED CAR WITHOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO AVOID STRIKING DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
A NINETY-DAY NOTICE WHICH DOES NOT STATE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IS DEFECTIVE AND HAS NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

THE RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BEFORE TAKING A MANDATORY COLLEGE FITNESS-EDUCATION... UNDER THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO CPLR 213, A BANK WHICH HAS STARTED A FORECLOSURE...