Pauneto v. Rose Towel & Linen Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pauneto v. Rose Towel & Linen Supply Co.

289 A.D.2d 384, 734 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12211

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 384 (Pauneto v. Rose Towel & Linen Supply Co.) 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

Pauneto v. Rose Towel & Linen Supply Co., 289 A.D.2d 384, 734 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants, Rose Towel and Linen Supply Co., Inc., and Ruben Porrata, as Administrator of the Estate of John Brophy, separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated May 30, 2001, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs failed to timely substitute the administrator of the Estate of John Brophy. In light of the inordinate delay in effecting substitution, dismissal of the complaint is warranted (see, CPLR 1021). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants, Rose Towel and Linen Supply Co., Inc., and Ruben Porrata, as Administrator of the Estate of John Brophy, separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated May 30, 2001, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs failed to timely substitute the administrator of the Estate of John Brophy. In light of the inordinate delay in effecting substitution, dismissal of the complaint is warranted (see, CPLR 1021). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 384, 734 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pauneto-v-rose-towel-linen-supply-co-nyappdiv-2001.