JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Max Rosemberg
This text of 90 A.D.3d 713 (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Max Rosemberg) 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.
Opinion
[714]*714“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015 (a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deémed a nullity” (Singer v Riskin, 32 AD3d 839, 839-840 [2006] [citations omitted]; see Stancu v Cheon Hyang Oh, 74 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2010]; Hicks v Jeffrey, 304 AD2d 618 [2003]; Gonzalez v Ford Motor Co., 295 AD2d 474, 475 [2002]; Brogan v Mary Immaculate Hosp. Div. of Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 209 AD2d 663, 664 [1994]). Although Priscilla Abrams was named as a defendant in the action, she died before the action was commenced, and no substitution took place as required by CPLR 1015 (a). Accordingly, the order appealed from is a nullity and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal (see Jordan v City of New York, 23 AD3d 436, 437 [2005]; Bossert v Ford Motor Co., 140 AD2d 480, 481 [1988]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 A.D.3d 713, 934 N.Y.2d 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-v-max-rosemberg-nyappdiv-2011.