Burton v. 215 East 77th Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burton v. 215 East 77th Associates

284 A.D.2d 122, 725 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5706

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

DecidedJune 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 122 (Burton v. 215 East 77th Associates) 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

Burton v. 215 East 77th Associates, 284 A.D.2d 122, 725 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 19, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant Lenox Hill Hospital’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly concluded that plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue defendant hospital by virtue of his failure to schedule the tort claim against it, which arose prior to the close of his personal bankruptcy proceeding, within the bankruptcy proceeding (see, Dynamics Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-New York, 69 NY2d 191; DeLarco v DeWitt, 136 AD2d 406). While plaintiff maintains that his trustee was aware of the tort claim, actual knowledge by a trustee of a claim is not a substitute for proper scheduling (see, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp. v Mathiasen, 207 AD2d 280, 282). Nor did the proper scheduling of the plaintiff’s contract claim against defendant 215 East 77th Associates suffice to meet the bankruptcy scheduling requirements with respect to plaintiff’s tort claim against Lenox Hill (see, id.). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 19, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant Lenox Hill Hospital’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly concluded that plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue defendant hospital by virtue of his failure to schedule the tort claim against it, which arose prior to the close of his personal bankruptcy proceeding, within the bankruptcy proceeding (see, Dynamics Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-New York, 69 NY2d 191; DeLarco v DeWitt, 136 AD2d 406). While plaintiff maintains that his trustee was aware of the tort claim, actual knowledge by a trustee of a claim is not a substitute for proper scheduling (see, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp. v Mathiasen, 207 AD2d 280, 282). Nor did the proper scheduling of the plaintiff’s contract claim against defendant 215 East 77th Associates suffice to meet the bankruptcy scheduling requirements with respect to plaintiff’s tort claim against Lenox Hill (see, id.). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 122, 725 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-215-east-77th-associates-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack