McDonnell v. Draizin
| Decision Date | 19 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2005-05035. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 09689,808 N.Y.S.2d 398,24 A.D.3d 628 |
| Parties | DENYSE McDONNELL, Respondent, v. DENNIS L. DRAIZIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the substitution of Denyse McDonnell as the plaintiff for Donald R. McErlean after an unreasonably long delay. This action, which was commenced in 1994, was based upon alleged medical malpractice committed in 1992. Mr. McErlean's wife, the former plaintiff Helen D. McErlean, died in 1995. The plaintiff's counsel failed to apprise the Supreme Court or the defendants of her death, and her derivative claims were dismissed in November 1997. Mr. McErlean died on January 17, 2001. Denyse McDonnell was issued letters testamentary on April 27, 2001. However, again, the plaintiffs' counsel was remiss in notifying the Supreme Court or its adversary of Mr. McErlean's death. It was not until the fall of 2003, in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, that Mr. McErlean's death was revealed. Substitution of Denyse McDonnell for Donald R. McErlean was not sought until January 2005.
CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time. The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has merit (see Suciu v. City of New York, 239 AD2d 338 [1997]; Mansfield Contr. Corp. v. Prassas, 183 AD2d 878 [1992]). Upon consideration of these factors, the substitution should not have been allowed. Accordingly, the complaint should have been dismissed (see Giroux v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 16 AD3d 1068 [2005];...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Jones
...the caselaw in New York, one of the few states with a “reasonable time” standard, rather than a fixed time period. McDonnell v. Draizin, 24 A.D.3d 628, 629, 808 N.Y.S.2d 398 (2005) (New York requires courts to consider all circumstances, including diligence of party seeking substitution, pr......
-
White v. Diallo
...v. Grossi, 59 A.D.3d 509, 511, 873 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; Bauer v. Mars Assoc., 35 A.D.3d 333, 333–334, 825 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; McDonnell v. Draizin, 24 A.D.3d 628, 628–629, 808 N.Y.S.2d 398 ).Here, the record does not support the defendants' contentions that there was a lack of diligence in the substit......
-
Alejandro v. N. Tarrytown Realty Assocs.
...time the administrator sought substitution (see Bauer v. Mars Assoc., 35 A.D.3d 333, 333–334, 825 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; McDonnell v. Draizin, 24 A.D.3d 628, 629, 808 N.Y.S.2d 398 ). The administrator failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking substitution, which he did only......
-
Knowles v. Schaeffer
...& Hosps. Corp., 52 A.D.3d at 794, 861 N.Y.S.2d 372; Bauer v. Mars Assoc., 35 A.D.3d at 334, 825 N.Y.S.2d 536; McDonnell v. Draizin, 24 A.D.3d 628, 629, 808 N.Y.S.2d 398). The plaintiff's contention that she did not default in opposing the respondent's motion is improperly raised for the fir......