Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp.

279 A.D.2d 445, 719 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 159
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 445 (Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp.) 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
Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp., 279 A.D.2d 445, 719 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated January 12, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked the capacity to sue. “The Bankruptcy Code broadly defines the property of a debtor to include causes of action existing at the time of the commencement of the bankruptcy action” (Bromley v Fleet Bank, 240 AD2d 611; see also, 11 USC § 541 [a] [1]). Upon the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, all property that the debtor owns or subsequently acquires, including a cause of action, vests in the bankruptcy estate (see, DeLarco v DeWitt, 136 AD2d 406). A debtor’s failure to list a legal claim as an asset on his or her bankruptcy petition causes the claim to remain the property of the bankruptcy estate and precludes a debtor from pursuing the claim on his or her own behalf (see, Hansen v Madani, 263 AD2d 881; see also, Bromley v Fleet Bank, supra). The incident on which the instant action was based occurred in December 1993. The plaintiffs commenced a bankruptcy proceeding in March 1994 and were granted a discharge in September 1994. It is undisputed that they did not include the action as an asset on the bankruptcy petition. Having failed to do so, they lack the capacity to sue in the present action (see, Hansen v Madani, supra; see also, Bromley v Fleet Bank, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

West v. Young
38 Misc. 3d 1030 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Sotille v. Mullin
30 Misc. 3d 812 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Monson v. Israeli
35 A.D.3d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Basri v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
306 A.D.2d 302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Brand v. Lipton
289 A.D.2d 275 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 445, 719 N.Y.S.2d 260, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coogan-v-eds-bargain-buggy-corp-nyappdiv-2001.