From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meier v. Shively

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 26, 1960
10 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Summary

In Meier (supra) the court cited Speier for the proposition that a decedent was not before the court, unless represented, and that therefore Special Term had no power to dismiss for neglect to prosecute stating: "The action may not be dismissed as against one who is not a party."

Summary of this case from DeRijdt v. Straile Co.

Opinion

January 26, 1960


Order denying motion for substitution of administrator as party plaintiff and to restore the cause to the calendar and granting the cross motion to dismiss for neglect to prosecute modified on the law to the extent of denying the cross motion and otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The cross motion to dismiss for neglect to prosecute was improperly granted. Section 88 of the Civil Practice Act appears to afford the exclusive method by which the abatement of a deceased's cause of action may be affirmatively effected. The procedure there set forth was not followed here and Special Term did not have the power to dismiss for neglect to prosecute ( Speier v. St. Francis Church, 3 A.D.2d 732). This result logically follows from the denial of the application for leave to substitute the administrator since the action may not be dismissed as against one who is not a party. However, the granting or denying of the application of the administrator seeking his substitution as a party plaintiff and for the continuance of the action lies within the discretion of the court and the question of laches may be considered in connection therewith ( Pringle v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 157 N.Y. 100). Although the deceased plaintiff died in August, 1953 and the administrator was appointed in July, 1955, no steps were taken to prosecute the action until this application was made in March, 1959, almost seven years after the occurrence giving rise to the cause of action, five and one-half years after the death of the plaintiff and three and one-half years after letters of administration had been issued. Such extensive delay and the less than satisfactory excuse offered in explanation thereof warranted Special Term's denial of the relief sought as a proper exercise of discretion.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, M.M. Frank and Valente, JJ.


Summaries of

Meier v. Shively

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 26, 1960
10 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

In Meier (supra) the court cited Speier for the proposition that a decedent was not before the court, unless represented, and that therefore Special Term had no power to dismiss for neglect to prosecute stating: "The action may not be dismissed as against one who is not a party."

Summary of this case from DeRijdt v. Straile Co.
Case details for

Meier v. Shively

Case Details

Full title:MARY MEIER et al., Appellants, v. PAUL R. SHIVELY, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1960

Citations

10 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Walfred Corporation v. Alb-Inn Inc.

Clearly, in these circumstances allowing plaintiff's case to continue against defendants would result in…

Silvagnoli v. Consol. Edison Emp. Mut. Aid

) This dismissal does not preclude an application at Special Term to substitute a legal representative as…