Meehan v. Washington

242 A.D.2d 286, 660 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8282
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 11, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 286 (Meehan v. Washington) 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
Meehan v. Washington, 242 A.D.2d 286, 660 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated September 29, 1995, which granted the motion of the defendants Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and Robinson Washington, Jr., and the cross motion of the defendant Shnayer Klein, to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute the action to the extent of directing the plaintiff to have an administrator appointed for the deceased defendant Robinson Washington, Jr., within 30 days thereof.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof, and substituting therefor provisions (1) denying the motion and cross motion, and (2) on the court’s own motion, directing the plaintiff to apply for the appointment of an administrator for the deceased defendant Robinson Washington, Jr., and, upon said appointment, to apply [287]*287for substitution of the administrator as a party defendant in the place and stead of the deceased defendant Robinson Washington, Jr.; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs time to move for the appointment of an administrator is enlarged until 45 days after the date of this decision and order; in the event that the plaintiff shall have neglected or failed to move for the appointment of an administrator as aforesaid, the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the deceased defendant Robinson Washington, Jr., is dismissed, without prejudice.

On April 10, 1992, while the present action was pending, the defendant Robinson Washington, Jr., died. By letter dated May 6, 1992, the attorney for Washington, who also represented the defendant Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (hereinafter Ryder), informed the plaintiffs attorney that Washington had died and that he would not seek to have a personal representative appointed for Washington.

More than 2½ years later, no legal representative had been substituted for Washington. On December 7, 1994, the attorney for Ryder, purportedly also acting on behalf of Washington, served the plaintiff with a 90-day notice demanding that he serve and file a note of issue. Thereafter, in June 1995 the attorney for Ryder, again purportedly also acting on behalf of Washington, moved, and the defendant Shnayer Klein cross-moved, to dismiss the action based on the plaintiffs failure to prosecute by not having sought substitution of a legal representative for Washington and not having complied with the discovery schedule imposed by a preliminary conference order issued by the court on October 28, 1991.

It is well settled that the death of a party terminates his attorney’s authority to act and stays the action as to him pending the substitution of a legal representative (see, CPLR 1015; Matter of Einstoss, 26 NY2d 181; Brogan v Mary Immaculate Hosp., 209 AD2d 663) and any determination rendered without such substitution is generally deemed a nullity (see, Oberlander v Levi, 207 AD2d 437). Pursuant to CPLR 1015 (a), which provides “[i]f a party dies and the claim for or against him is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties”, the plaintiff is directed to apply for the appointment of an administrator for Washington, and upon said appointment, to apply for substitution of the administrator as a party defendant. Joy, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hayden v. Brown
2024 NY Slip Op 04251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Smith
2021 NY Slip Op 08167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Barnabas v. Boodoo
134 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Vapnersh v. Tabak
131 A.D.3d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Abecasis v. Fontanazza
10 Misc. 3d 195 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2005)
Horowitz v. Griggs
2 A.D.3d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hyman v. Booth Memorial Hospital
306 A.D.2d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hicks v. Jeffrey
304 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Co.
295 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bluestein v. City of New York
280 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Lang v. Poughkeepsie Ob-Gyn, P. C.
251 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Janvier v. Allen
249 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 A.D.2d 286, 660 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meehan-v-washington-nyappdiv-1997.