Bryant v. Riddle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bryant v. Riddle

259 A.D.2d 399, 687 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2799

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 399 (Bryant v. Riddle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bryant v. Riddle, 259 A.D.2d 399, 687 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about January 21, 1998, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs lack of capacity to sue, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to dismiss was properly denied on the ground that a person of unsound mind but not judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person (Sengstack v Sengstack, 4 NY2d 502). The cross motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem was properly granted since it appears that plaintiff is an unadjudicated incompetent (see, supra, at 509-510; CPLR 1202). Defendants’ argument for dismissal is hardly advanced by cases denying a default judgment against a person whose mental competency is questionable and for whom a guardian ad litem has not been appointed (e.g., Sarfaty v Sarfaty, 83 AD2d 748). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about January 21, 1998, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs lack of capacity to sue, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to dismiss was properly denied on the ground that a person of unsound mind but not judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person (Sengstack v Sengstack, 4 NY2d 502). The cross motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem was properly granted since it appears that plaintiff is an unadjudicated incompetent (see, supra, at 509-510; CPLR 1202). Defendants’ argument for dismissal is hardly advanced by cases denying a default judgment against a person whose mental competency is questionable and for whom a guardian ad litem has not been appointed (e.g., Sarfaty v Sarfaty, 83 AD2d 748). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 399, 687 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-riddle-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack