Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Rogak Report: 26 May 2004

Expand Messages
  • therogakreport
    DEFENDANT S ESTATE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED AS DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH ACTION IS TIME-BARRED Castro v. Mione, NYLJ 5/25/04 (Supreme Court, Kings County)(LEWIS, j.) A
    Message 1 of 1 , May 26 6:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      DEFENDANT'S ESTATE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED AS DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH ACTION
      IS TIME-BARRED

      Castro v. Mione, NYLJ 5/25/04 (Supreme Court, Kings County)(LEWIS, j.)

      A slip and fall occurred on 5/31/2000 at a premises in Brooklyn. The
      named defendant died on 5/23/1992. Defendant's counsel moved for
      dismissal on the grounds that the defendant, being deceased, did not
      own the property on the date of loss and could not have been properly
      served. Counsel also asserted that even if the proper defendant were
      to be named, the statute of limitations has run. Plaintiff opposed,
      on the grounds that the individual defendant is still listed on
      official records as the owner of the property and nothing put
      plaintiff on notice of the death or change of ownership. And defense
      counsel did not provide a death certificate to plaintiff until after
      the statute of limitations expired.

      The summons in this case was filed with the court on the day that the
      statute of limitations would have expired (5/02/03). Under CPLR 306-
      b. plaintiff had 120 days -- until 9/02/03 -- to effect service.
      Service was made on the deceased's surviving spouse on 5/28/03.
      Defendant served an Answer on 7/23/03 which advised plaintiff that
      the defendant was deceased. Defendant moved for dismissal on
      8/18/03, when there were still 2 weeks left on the 120 day period for
      proper service. On 10/02/03, a month after the 120 day period
      expired, plaintiff made a Motion to substitute the estate of the
      deceased as defendant.

      The Court held that the plaintiff should have moved, within the 120
      day period, to substitute the estate as defendant. However, because
      the summons was served on the deceased's surviving spouse, there is
      no element of surprise or prejudice to the estate. In addition, the
      spouse has preference to serve as administratrix, and is entitled to
      all or half of the estate. Also notable is the fact that defendant
      had not disputed the merits of the case.

      Under all these circumstances, held the Court, plaintiff should, in
      the interests of justice, be permitted to amend the summons and
      complaint to substitute the Estate of John Mione as defendant, and be
      given 30 days to serve the summons once a personal representative has
      been appointed for the estate.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.