From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Humphries v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 28, 2013
106 A.D.3d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-28

Catherine HUMPHRIES, as Executor of the Estate of William Mistofsky, Petitioner–Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF N.Y. INC., Respondent–Appellant.

Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors, LLP, Garden City Park (Michael F. Vecchione of counsel), for appellant. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Kevin M. Berry of counsel), for respondent.


Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors, LLP, Garden City Park (Michael F. Vecchione of counsel), for appellant. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Kevin M. Berry of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 4, 2012, which, among other things, granted petitioner's motion to approve, nunc pro tunc, settlements previously entered into between petitioner and four nonparties (defendants in the underlying class action asbestos litigation), and directed petitioner's counsel to amend the caption to reflect the substitution of the estate of the deceased as petitioner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted a nunc pro tunc substitution of petitioner, where she had been appointed executor of decedent's estate shortly after his death, retained the same counsel, and actively participated in the litigation before the Workers' Compensation Board and the court ( cf. Griffin v. Manning, 36 A.D.3d 530, 532, 828 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1st Dept. 2007] ).

The court properly approved, nunc pro tunc, the previously agreed-upon settlements with the four entities. Petitioner demonstrated that the settlement amounts were reasonable in light of the limited resources and uncertain liability of the entities; that she was not dilatory, since she had no reason to seek court approval of the settlements until after the Workers' Compensation Board determined that respondent Con Edison's consent had not been obtained; and that Con Edison was not prejudiced ( see Medina v. Phillips, 88 A.D.3d 524, 525, 930 N.Y.S.2d 570 [1st Dept. 2011] ).

*718We have considered Con Edison's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Humphries v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 28, 2013
106 A.D.3d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Humphries v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Catherine HUMPHRIES, as Executor of the Estate of William Mistofsky…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 28, 2013

Citations

106 A.D.3d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3785
965 N.Y.S.2d 717

Citing Cases

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

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

Kelly v. Fenton

In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the motion only to the extent of making the…