Sanders v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth.

Citation925 N.Y.S.2d 859,85 A.D.3d 1005,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05479
PartiesMichael SANDERS, plaintiff,v.NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent;Michelle Sanders, nonparty–appellant.
Decision Date21 June 2011
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 1005
925 N.Y.S.2d 859
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05479

Michael SANDERS, plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent;Michelle Sanders, nonparty–appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 21, 2011.


The Berkman Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert J. Tolchin of counsel), for nonparty-appellant.Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for respondent.

[85 A.D.3d 1005] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, [85 A.D.3d 1006] nonparty Michelle Sanders, as administratrix of the estate of the plaintiff, Michael Sanders, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated October 23, 2009, which denied her motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to extend the time to file a note of issue, and, pursuant to CPLR 1021, to be substituted as a plaintiff in place of Michael Sanders and to amend the caption accordingly.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On June 4, 2002, the attorney for the plaintiff, Michael Sanders, signed a compliance conference order directing the plaintiff to file a note of issue on or before November 20, 2002, and warning that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the action. The plaintiff failed to comply with that order either by filing a timely note of issue or by moving to extend the period for doing so, and the action was dismissed on November 29, 2002, pursuant to CPLR 3216. On July 21, 2003, the plaintiff died intestate, and the appellant, Michelle Sanders, was appointed administratrix on May 2, 2006. Three years after her appointment, the appellant moved, inter alia, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to be substituted as a plaintiff in place of the decedent. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

In light of the approximate three-year delay between the death of the plaintiff and the appointment of the appellant as the administratrix of the plaintiff's estate, the further three-year delay between the

[925 N.Y.S.2d 860]

appointment of the appellant as administratrix and the underlying motion, inter alia, seeking her substitution in this action, the failure to proffer any excuse for the delays, and the failure to show that the action was potentially meritorious, that branch of the appellant's motion which was for substitution was properly denied ( see CPLR 1021; Reed v. Grossi, 59 A.D.3d 509, 511, 873 N.Y.S.2d 676; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Gurmendi v. Perry St. Dev. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 6, 2012
    ...Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d at 138–140, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120, 773 N.E.2d 485; [939 N.Y.S.2d 552] Sainval–Brice v. All Seasons Indus. Servs., Inc., 85 A.D.3d at 1005, 926 N.Y.S.2d 586; Spitzer v. Tranese, 72 A.D.3d at 675, 898 N.Y.S.2d 618). However, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of ......
  • Perez v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 22, 2012
    ...after her death clearly warranted dismissal of the action as to Velez pursuant to CPLR 1021 ( see Sanders v. New York City Hous. Auth., 85 A.D.3d 1005, 925 N.Y.S.2d 859 [2011];Washington v. Min Chung Hwan, 20 A.D.3d 303, 799 N.Y.S.2d 31 [2005];Palmer v. Selpan Elec. Co., 5 A.D.3d 248, 773 N......
  • Kelly v. St. Francis Hosp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 14, 2012
    ...offers on appeal with respect to the dismissal of her derivative claim is without merit ( cf. Sanders v. New York City Hous. Auth., 85 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 925 N.Y.S.2d 859;Borruso v. New York Methodist Hosp., 84 A.D.3d 1293, 1294–1295, 924 N.Y.S.2d 152;Buckley v. National Frgt., 220 A.D.2d 1......
  • Sainval–brice v. All Seasons Indus. Serv. Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 21, 2011
    ...established prima facie that they did not have a contractual obligation to maintain the mats in question in a safe manner after[85 A.D.3d 1005] delivery. Further, assuming such an obligation existed, the defendants nonetheless established that they neither created nor had actual or construc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT