From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 2007
46 A.D.3d 1414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. CA 07-00788.

December 21, 2007.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered March 15, 2007 in a medical malpractice action. The order, among other things, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (AMY ARCHER FLAHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN A. COLLINS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: This action was commenced by Patricia A. Fitzpatrick and her husband, Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, to recover damages for injuries sustained by Patricia arising from the alleged malpractice of defendants Ronald G. Palazzo, M.D. and Julie L. Mandaville, R.PA. During the pendency of the action, both Patricia and her husband died. Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to substitute Mark J. Fitzpatrick as a party plaintiff in a timely manner, and in granting the cross motion for, inter alia, an order substituting Mark as successor executor of Patricia's estate ( see CPLR 1015, 1021). The record establishes that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay in seeking the substitution, and there is a "'strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits'" ( Johnson v Trivedi, 41 AD3d 1259, 1260; see Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610).

We further reject defendants' contention that the court erred in ordering the substitution nunc pro tunc. By actively participating in the litigation with full knowledge that the original plaintiffs had died and, indeed, in stipulating to the substitution of Mark, defendants waived their present contention that all matters in the litigation that occurred before the substitution were a nullity ( see Abramowitz v American Gen. Contr. Co., 239 AD2d 303; Durrant v Kelly, 186 AD2d 237, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 758).


Summaries of

Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 2007
46 A.D.3d 1414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Fitzpatrick v. Palazzo

Case Details

Full title:MARK J. FITZPATRICK, as Successor Executor of PATRICIA A. FITZPATRICK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 21, 2007

Citations

46 A.D.3d 1414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 10285
848 N.Y.S.2d 478

Citing Cases

Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Fair Only Real Estate Corp.

Griffin v Manning, supra at 532; see Nieves v 331 E. 109th St. Corp., 112 AD2d 59 (1st Dept. 1985).…

In re Robert Sills

Only "under 'special circumstances,' such as where there has been active participation in the litigation by…