Pavone v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pavone v. Walters

214 A.D.2d 1052, 626 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6937

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1052 (Pavone v. Walters) 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

Pavone v. Walters, 214 A.D.2d 1052, 626 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for substitution as appellant-respondent dismissed and appeals dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s death on July 13, 1993 "terminated [his] attorney’s authority to act and stayed the proceedings pending substitution of a legal representative (CPLR 1015; Matter of Einstoss, 26 NY2d 181; Silvagnoli v Consolidated Edison Employees Mut. Aid Socy., 112 AD2d 819)” (Weber v Bellinger, 124 AD2d 1009). Because there was no substitution (see, CPLR 1021), Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to act, its order is a nullity, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider either the appeals from that order or this motion (see, Weber v Bellinger, supra). Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Motion for substitution as appellant-respondent dismissed and appeals dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s death on July 13, 1993 "terminated [his] attorney’s authority to act and stayed the proceedings pending substitution of a legal representative (CPLR 1015; Matter of Einstoss, 26 NY2d 181; Silvagnoli v Consolidated Edison Employees Mut. Aid Socy., 112 AD2d 819)” (Weber v Bellinger, 124 AD2d 1009). Because there was no substitution (see, CPLR 1021), Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to act, its order is a nullity, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider either the appeals from that order or this motion (see, Weber v Bellinger, supra). Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 1052, 626 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pavone-v-walters-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack