Brown v. Mount Sinai W.

2024 NY Slip Op 31069(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 29, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Brown v Mount Sinai W. 2024 NY Slip Op 31069(U) March 29, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 805247/2023 Judge: John J. Kelley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 805247/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JOHN J. KELLEY PART 56M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 805247/2023 PAULETTE BROWN, as proposed Administrator of the Estate of KEVIN BROWN, MOTION DATE 11/08/2023

Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

-v- MOUNT SINAI WEST, PARK TERRACE CARE CENTER, DECISION + ORDER ON INC., doing business as PARK TERRACE CARE CENTER, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, MOTION

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL/3211(a)(3) .

In this action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice and statutory

nursing home negligence, the defendant Mount Sinai West moves pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3)

to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, based on the plaintiff’s lack of capacity to

prosecute the action. The plaintiff opposes the motion. The motion is granted, and the

complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against Mount Sinai West, albeit without prejudice to

commencement of a new action against it for the same relief pursuant to CPLR 205(a) by a duly

authorized representative of the estate of the plaintiff’s decedent, Kevin Brown.

The plaintiff’s proposed decedent died on January 13, 2022. The plaintiff commenced

this action on April 28, 2023. As of that date, the plaintiff had not been issued letters of

administration or letters testamentary by the Surrogate’s Court pursuant to SCPA articles 10 or

14, respectively. The defendant made the instant motion on June 20, 2023 (see CPLR 2211).

In an affirmation dated September 26, 2023, the plaintiff’s attorney asserted that the plaintiff had

been issued letters of voluntary administration with respect to the decedent’s estate on

September 1, 2023, and attached a copy of the relevant certificate of voluntary administration. 805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 805247/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

In her summons and complaint, the plaintiff characterized herself as the “proposed

administrator” of the decedent’s estate.

“A personal representative who has received letters of administration of a decedent's estate [or letters testamentary] is the only party who is authorized to commence a survival action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the decedent or a wrongful death action to recover damages sustained by the decedent’s distributees on account of his or her death”

(Shelley v South Shore Healthcare, 123 AD3d 797, 797 [2d Dept 2014]; see Gulledge v

Jefferson County, 172 AD3d 1666, 1667 [3d Dept 2019]; Jordan v Metropolitan Jewish Hospice,

122 AD3d 682, 683 [2d Dept 2014]; Mingone v State of New York, 100 AD2d 897, 899 [2d Dept

1984]; EPTL 1-2.13, 5-4.1 [1]; 11-3.2 [b]). Hence, a “proposed administrator” lacks capacity to

prosecute either a personal injury “survival” action or a wrongful death action on behalf of the

estate of a decedent (see Rodriguez v River Val. Care Ctr., Inc., 175 AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept

2019]; Richards v Lourdes Hosp., 58 AD3d 927, 927-928 [3d Dept 2009]; Mendez v Kyung Yoo,

23 AD3d 354, 355 [2d Dept 2005]; Duran v Isabella Geriatric Ctr., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op

30500[U], *9, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 669, *12-13 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Feb. 15, 2023] [Kelley,

J.]; Castro v Fraser, 2022 NY Slip Op 30903[U], *5, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 1368, *7 [Sup Ct, N.Y.

County, Mar. 15, 2022] [Kelley, J.]; Stroble v Townhouse Operating Co., 2019 NY Misc LEXIS

18865 [Sup Ct, Nassau County, Dec. 16, 2019]; Fleisher v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C.,

2015 NY Slip Op 31855[U], *5, 2015 NY Misc LEXIS 3625, *6 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Oct. 5,

2015]).

A “voluntary administrator” also lacks capacity to prosecute either a personal injury

“survival” action or a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate of a decedent. The SCPA

allows for the appointment of a voluntary administrator of a small estate, defined as an estate

“having a gross value of $50,000 or less exclusive of property required to be set off under EPTL

5-3.1(a)” (SCPA 1301[1]), and defines a “voluntary administrator” as “a person who qualifies

and undertakes to settle the estate of the decedent without the formality of court administration

as hereinafter provided” (SCPA 1301[2]). Crucially, however, “[t]he voluntary administrator shall 805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 805247/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

have no power to enforce a claim for the wrongful death of or a claim for personal injuries to the

decedent” (SCPA 1306[3]). Consequently a “voluntary administrator” has no capacity to

prosecute a personal injury “survival” action or a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate of

a decedent (see Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 246 [1980]; Rodriguez v River Val.

Care Ctr., Inc., 175 AD3d at 433; Richards v Lourdes Hosp., 58 AD3d at 927-928; Ramos v

Kalsow, 2023 NY Slip Op 32954[U], *3, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 4648, *4 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County,

Aug. 24, 2023] [Kelley, J.]; Castro v Fraser, 2022 NY Slip Op 30903[U], *5, 2022 NY Misc

LEXIS 1368, *7 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Mar. 15, 2022] [Kelley, J.]).

The complaint thus must be dismissed insofar as asserted against Mount Sinai West.

The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to the commencement of a new action

against that defendant for the same relief, under a new Index Number, in accordance with

CPLR 205(a), within six months of the termination of the claims against the defendant Mount

Sinai West, after the plaintiff is appointed as the executor or administrator the decedent’s estate

by the Surrogate’s Court pursuant to SCPA article 10. As relevant here, CPLR 205(a) provides

that,

“If 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 or series of transactions or occurrences 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 and that service upon defendant is effected within such six-month period.”

A “disposition based solely upon the absence of a duly appointed administrator does not

preclude reprosecution of the underlying claim through the mechanism of CPLR 205 (subd [a])

once a qualified administrator has been appointed” (Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d at

252; see Rodriguez v River Val. Care Ctr., Inc., 175 AD3d at 433; Snodgrass v Professional

Radiology, 50 AD3d 883, 884-885 [2d Dept 2008]; Bernardez v City of New York, 100 AD2d

798, 799-800 [1st Dept 1984]).

805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 805247/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

In light of the foregoing, it is,

ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice,

insofar as asserted against the defendant Mount Sinai West; and it is further,

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the action is severed as against Mount Sinai

West; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the court shall enter judgment dismissing the complaint

without prejudice insofar as asserted against the defendant Mount Sinai West.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

3/29/2024 $SIG$ DATE JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]