Rand v. Rand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rand v. Rand

134 A.D.2d 336, 520 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50514

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 336 (Rand v. Rand) 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

Rand v. Rand, 134 A.D.2d 336, 520 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In (1) an action to recover damages based on the breach of a separation agreement (action No. 1), and (2) an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution (action No. 2), the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 31, 1986, which substituted Michael Rand, as executor of the estate of Rose G. Rand, [337]*337deceased, as the proper party defendant in action No. 1, and as the proper party plaintiff in action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to substitute Michael Rand as the proper party defendant in action No. 1, and as the proper party plaintiff in action No. 2. (See, CPLR 1015 [a]; 1021; Rosenfeld v Hotel Corp., 20 NY2d 25, 28-29.) There was no unreasonable delay between the occurrence of the event requiring substitution (Mrs. Rand’s death) and the time that the application for substitution was made (cf., Meier v Shively, 10 AD2d 566). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In (1) an action to recover damages based on the breach of a separation agreement (action No. 1), and (2) an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution (action No. 2), the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 31, 1986, which substituted Michael Rand, as executor of the estate of Rose G. Rand, [337]*337deceased, as the proper party defendant in action No. 1, and as the proper party plaintiff in action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to substitute Michael Rand as the proper party defendant in action No. 1, and as the proper party plaintiff in action No. 2. (See, CPLR 1015 [a]; 1021; Rosenfeld v Hotel Corp., 20 NY2d 25, 28-29.) There was no unreasonable delay between the occurrence of the event requiring substitution (Mrs. Rand’s death) and the time that the application for substitution was made (cf., Meier v Shively, 10 AD2d 566). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 336, 520 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rand-v-rand-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack