Suciu v. City of New York

239 A.D.2d 338, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4612
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 338 (Suciu v. City of New York) 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
Suciu v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 338, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Broadway Holding Co. and Mega Marts, Inc. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated May 16, 1996, which denied their motion, in which the defendant City of New York joined, to dismiss the complaint for failure to substitute the estate of the deceased plaintiff as the proper party plaintiff within a reasonable time and granted the administrator’s cross motion to be substituted as a party plaintiff.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated May 16, 1996, as denied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint with prejudice insofar as asserted against them is granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

In light of the five-year delay in obtaining letters of administration, the delay in seeking substitution, the failure to offer any excuse for the delay, the absence of any affidavit of merit, and the prejudice to the appellants, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, CPLR 1021; Mansfield Contr. Corp. v Pras[339]*339sas, 183 AD2d 878, 879; Walfred Corp. v Alb-Inn Inc., 178 AD2d 811, 812-813; Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610; Dorney v Reddy, 45 AD2d 754). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bethpage Fed. Credit Union v. Hughes
2025 NY Slip Op 03298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Silberstein v. Silberstein Awad & Miklos, P.C.
2019 NY Slip Op 4438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Howlader v. Lucky Star Grocery, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 6067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Rosenblatt v. Doe
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Terpis v. Regal Heights Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc.
108 A.D.3d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Borruso v. New York Methodist Hospital
84 A.D.3d 1293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Thompson v. Clearway Automotive, Inc.
50 A.D.3d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bauer v. Mars Associates & Normel Construction Corp.
35 A.D.3d 333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
McDonnell v. Draizin
24 A.D.3d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Washington v. Min Chung Hwan
20 A.D.3d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Co.
295 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 338, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suciu-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.