Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo

46 A.D.3d 1414, 848 N.Y.S.2d 478

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1414 (Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo) 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

Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo, 46 A.D.3d 1414, 848 N.Y.S.2d 478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered March 15, 2007 in a medical malpractice action. The order, among other things, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: This action was commenced by Patricia A. Fitzpatrick and her husband, Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, to recover damages for injuries sustained by Patricia arising from the alleged malpractice of defendants Ronald G. Palazzo, M.D. and Julie L. Mandaville, R.PA. During the pendency of the action, both Patricia and her husband died. Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to substitute Mark J. Fitzpatrick as a party plaintiff in a timely manner, and in granting the cross motion for, inter alia, an order substituting Mark as successor executor of Patricia’s estate (see CPLR 1015, 1021). The record establishes that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay in seeking the substitution, and there is a “ ‘strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits’ ” (Johnson v Trivedi, 41 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2007]; see Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610 [1987]).

We further reject defendants’ contention that the court erred in ordering the substitution nunc pro tunc. By actively participating in the litigation with full knowledge that the original plaintiffs had died and, indeed, in stipulating to the substitution of Mark, defendants waived their present contention that all matters in the litigation that occurred before the substitution were a nullity (see Abramowitz v American Gen. Contr. Co., 239 AD2d 303 [1997]; Durrant v Kelly, 186 AD2d [1415]*1415237 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 758 [1992]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered March 15, 2007 in a medical malpractice action. The order, among other things, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: This action was commenced by Patricia A. Fitzpatrick and her husband, Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, to recover damages for injuries sustained by Patricia arising from the alleged malpractice of defendants Ronald G. Palazzo, M.D. and Julie L. Mandaville, R.PA. During the pendency of the action, both Patricia and her husband died. Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to substitute Mark J. Fitzpatrick as a party plaintiff in a timely manner, and in granting the cross motion for, inter alia, an order substituting Mark as successor executor of Patricia’s estate (see CPLR 1015, 1021). The record establishes that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay in seeking the substitution, and there is a “ ‘strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits’ ” (Johnson v Trivedi, 41 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2007]; see Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610 [1987]).

We further reject defendants’ contention that the court erred in ordering the substitution nunc pro tunc. By actively participating in the litigation with full knowledge that the original plaintiffs had died and, indeed, in stipulating to the substitution of Mark, defendants waived their present contention that all matters in the litigation that occurred before the substitution were a nullity (see Abramowitz v American Gen. Contr. Co., 239 AD2d 303 [1997]; Durrant v Kelly, 186 AD2d [1415]*1415237 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 758 [1992]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1414, 848 N.Y.S.2d 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-palazzo-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack