Villaverde v 3464 E. Tremont Holdings LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Villaverde v 3464 E. Tremont Holdings LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 31296(U) May 1, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 300839-17 Judge: Howard H. Sherman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPAl!b Ootll.tT OF 'rHE STATE OF RaW YOU im:on ;.u PDT j: SZM!O VXLLAVERDB E.SQ, AS GtTARDIA!f FO.R JANET ROSE DJ:FRISCO C!Olm'l'Y OJ' Plaintiff (sl An. Incapacitated Person: 1 x [* 2] intbfX n~el' 91817..,15,. and (illlalified as s.uch on Januaq '2/?, .2:017, he eommenoecl this r~l.:atecl amongst many .other thinvs., «lu~y ~nd ution on April 12" 201.1 'Cl.ftd.e:!: index IQQne:r damages: fo.r :tn:~eff.oh .of ficluai.ary resoissi¢1n of d.eeds trans.ferring raa.l property bas:ed on. i·s clearly not. They have beel.1 consi·<ieredt to.g-ethe.r f'Qr putpos's <>f ooaffn.i.~nce,..but tz:tiey shf>Uld not be formall? eonso.lida:ted or joined, particularly .since the Guardians.hip proceeding will be account. :Ootobe:r 27 ,. 2 Cl1'1 • The powers of the Guardian ceaee upon the death of 'his ward, asi~ f)::ont the .filing of a final a~~Qnt and. fulfilment. of. his responsibility far the burial of t.he I.,,p. ~ as well a• ee~tain other d.uties not ~elev~t to t,hese proc.ee.dings. . . [* 3] the prosect:J.tion of the daJnafes and rec11tion. a.ction under index nUllYher 3 o 0>&3 9 - :z o17 o learly ceased 'QJ>On :M~s, t>i.trisoo,. e death .. Accordingly, any further motians with respect ta this damages and .rec.i sion. action will b• ~rouifht. in tb:at pll::'oceeding, and not undt:tl!' the Guardi.anship index number 91817-2015. 1 an actlon divests the C(l)-qrt of juri$41ctian." autoltlat.icall1' nullifi.es any orders that are made between the time :cf de;ath and stays a.11 proceedings aut.mnattcnill.ly. For .re.asons ·of jurls.diction, there.fore, tl'lis Court cannot mak:e any d;i:rectives wi.tl:l. respeo't to prior reatraining or4ers and existing lis pendens .. Addi.tionEi.ll;y, bowev.er, the lf•st TremGnt Def eruiants move for notwithl!Jtanctinsr. the e~istence of an autolll$tlc stay oauserd by the . death G'f a party prior to Judgmel'lt .. Pw::"s'.liat.tt to this •ection,, if a required substitutl.an i.e, net made. within the party for whom substit~tion :a should have. been made •. The det.e.rminatian ·e!if re•sanableti:ess i:equcirll!s sevaral tactO%S inel1;Lding "reason.able time" ·consi.de~atian the dilig-ence of the This moli(:ln wu~ eal~~ed under ind~ number gui 11~1015. 1 g of party seellinQ' [* 4] • •®stitw.tion, the prejudice to the othe.t pe.:rtr.ies, and whether the party to be s~ti'buted has sh<:lwn that the action or the diiifef.l.lle ha.Si potential me·r·it. ,i,.eidel v. :KapWOr, 123 AD 3d SUUi (.2na. D~t a.01.4:> .. Although. Cou,,rt.1 ha?e shown relativ;e liberal.it;, 1re9-.rd!ti.f the of .d.alay be.~use Qf t:.he strong puhli<: poliay f'avoring time disposition of c:ases on the merits (Peters v. City of 48: AD ~·d l,29 [1•~ ftS~H. Co:rp, Dapt 2008]). the fa.i.lu:t:e to demonstrate a :reasonable excuse for the. delay will warra,nt d.i.smissal of the acticn. Publ.i~ A~ini.s·tX'•tiQ;n v •. LE!vine, 142 AD .2d 47i (111t .Dept 201,). rn order to .Prevail oa a CPU.R. 110.21 .motion to dismi:ss., a d•f'oliant:. xnuse also shew that the p.l.aint!ff·'s f-.ilux-e tt.J secure substitution in a timely fasb:tmi :rresulte<l in. undue prejudit:e .. Bo~iega v,. Presbrterian Hosp. v,. city ·o.f New York 305 AD S•4 ~l:G (1 at Dept 2003) • · Ks.. Xafri 100 p.e.&:seli away app:eoximat.ely six months ago.. ma pre.oedent has been cl~eo which wv.ld suppo:r1: 4ieJ.m,issal cf this p:rooeeding- after suoh a short laps.e Df time,. and this Ccurt deo1i:nes to direct str:rom.a.ey 4ismiSlU~l at thi.et tiftlelf It silou:ld be; nttted noneth.eleda. t.hat the so.le opposiuion f'i1ed to t.his moti'cn1 o.cnsists of the affirmat!Qn of. the counsel. for Jtlif. r>! Prisc:1:o~s 4.aug"hter.1 which contains no suh.stantive• danonstratl<t>n that any [* 5] effort has .b1ten .illade to date to make proper stfl:r-tlt\\t.ion fGr the deceased ;party plaintiff by any part:t with standing to do the time to :ma::ke subs ti tuti.on o~ot be ~ten.ded. $0 • .le indetini tely .,. [S.llvapo'li v., Censolidated Edi.son Emplo:yeeHt Mut:µ:al Md So:aif;lty., 1.U AD 2d 819 {1 -~ Oept ·19 9 $ ). l t.he Court berewi th .di.rec ts that this proee•dint'. wil.1 .be dismissed p.ursuant to c.p~ 1102.1 l.Ull.ess pl:'opel!' substitA1tion !1:1 ltlade for ·the dac!eased plaint.iff within s:o days f.rom the to be 11Jett,J.tfd, ~te Q.f set.tlememt of th:e o.rder herein . • B.eyond this, all motions are denied .. Settle Q.xdar.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.