Court Opinion

ID: 9958759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:08.720476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.417757
License: Public Domain

Diaz v Bajkina
               2024 NY Slip Op 31090(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 805029/2023
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
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.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 805029/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                                             PART                              56M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          805029/2023
             RAFAEL COLON DIAZ, by the Proposed
             Administrator of his Estate, JUAN COLON, and                                        MOTION DATE         11/08/2023
             REINA COLON, Individually,
                                              Plaintiffs,                                        MOTION SEQ. NO.         001

                                                 -v-
             DANIELLE BAJKINA, M.D., STEVEN MILLER, M.D.,
             MILLER LUMIE, M.D., JENNIFER H. HAYTHE, M.D., and                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
             NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN- COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY                                                  MOTION
             MEDICAL CENTER,

                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
            15, 16
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISS                         .

                      In this action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice, Danielle Bajakian,

            M.D., sued herein as Danielle Bajkina, M.D., Lumei Miller, M.D., sued herein as Miller Lumie,

            M.D., Jennifer H. Haythe, M.D., and The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, sued herein as

            New York Presbyterian-Columbia University Medical Center (collectively the NYPH defendants),

            move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them

            for the plaintiffs’ lack of capacity. The plaintiffs oppose the motion. The motion is granted, and

            the complaint is dismissed, albeit without prejudice to commencement of a new action pursuant

            to CPLR 205(a) under a new index number as to all of the NYPH defendants, save Lumei Miller,

            M.D., against whom the plaintiffs discontinued the action with prejudice.

                      Rafael Colon Diaz (the decedent), a patient of the NYPH defendants, died on January

            27, 2021. The plaintiff Reina Colon is the decedent’s widow. On January 27, 2023, the plaintiff

            Juan Colon, who seeks to be appointed as the administrator of the decedent’s estate,

             805029/2023 COLON DIAZ, RAFAEL ET AL vs. BAJKINA MD, DANIELLE ET AL                                     Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 805029/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2024

            commenced this action together with Reina Colon. As of that date, neither plaintiff had been

            issued letters of administration or letters testamentary by the Surrogate’s Court pursuant to

            SCPA articles 10 or 14, respectively. On July 12, 2023, the plaintiffs discontinued the action,

            with prejudice, insofar as asserted against Lumei Miller, M.D., sued herein as Miller Lumie, M.D.

            All of the NYPH defendants made the instant motion on August 10, 2023 (see CPLR 2211). In

            an affirmation dated September 26, 2023, the plaintiff’s attorney suggested that, if the court

            were to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs’ lack of capacity, it do so without prejudice to

            commencement of a new action for the same relief, pursuant to CPLR 205(a), after Juan Colon

            obtained letters of administration.

                   In the summons and complaint, Juan Colon characterized himself as the “proposed

            administrator” of the decedent’s estate.

                           “A personal representative who has received letters of administration of a
                           decedent's estate [or letters testamentary] is the only party who is authorized to
                           commence a survival action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained
                           by the decedent or a wrongful death action to recover damages sustained by the
                           decedent’s distributees on account of his or her death”

            (Shelley v South Shore Healthcare, 123 AD3d 797, 797 [2d Dept 2014]; see Gulledge v

            Jefferson County, 172 AD3d 1666, 1667 [3d Dept 2019]; Jordan v Metropolitan Jewish Hospice,

            122 AD3d 682, 683 [2d Dept 2014]; Mingone v State of New York, 100 AD2d 897, 899 [2d Dept

            1984]; EPTL 1-2.13, 5-4.1 [1]; 11-3.2 [b]). Consequently, a “proposed administrator” lacks

            capacity to prosecute either a personal injury “survival” action or a wrongful death action on

            behalf of the estate of a decedent (see Rodriguez v River Val. Care Ctr., Inc., 175 AD3d 432,

            433 [1st Dept 2019]; Richards v Lourdes Hosp., 58 AD3d 927, 927-928 [3d Dept 2009]; Mendez

            v Kyung Yoo, 23 AD3d 354, 355 [2d Dept 2005]; Duran v Isabella Geriatric Ctr., Inc., 2023 NY

            Slip Op 30500[U], *9, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 669, *12-13 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Feb. 15, 2023]

            [Kelley, J.]; Castro v Fraser, 2022 NY Slip Op 30903[U], *5, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 1368, *7 [Sup

            Ct, N.Y. County, Mar. 15, 2022] [Kelley, J.]; Stroble v Townhouse Operating Co., 2019 NY Misc

            LEXIS 18865 [Sup Ct, Nassau County, Dec. 16, 2019]; Fleisher v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler,
             805029/2023 COLON DIAZ, RAFAEL ET AL vs. BAJKINA MD, DANIELLE ET AL                    Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 805029/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2024

            P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 31855[U], *5, 2015 NY Misc LEXIS 3625, *6 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Oct.

            5, 2015]), and the complaint must be dismissed against the remaining NYPH defendants insofar

            as asserted by Juan Colon, as the proposed administrator of the estate of Rafael Colon Diaz.

                   A surviving spouse may prosecute a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium,

            albeit one that is limited to the period of time during which the decedent was alive and suffering

            from injuries caused by a defendant (see Liff v Schildkrout, 49 NY2d 622, 632 [1980]). Here,

            the decedent’s spouse survived him and, hence, she would be entitled to prosecute this limited

            claim for loss of consortium. Such a cause of action, however, does not exist independent of

            the injured spouse’s right to maintain an action for the injuries he or she had personally

            sustained (see id.; Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d 708, 711 [2d Dept 2012]).

            Since the claims directly arising from the injuries that the decedent himself allegedly sustained

            are being dismissed for Juan Colon’s lack of capacity, Reina Colon’s derivative claims must be

            dismissed as well, since “the derivative cause of action cannot survive the dismissal of the main

            claims for damages” (Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d at 711).

                   The dismissals against the remaining NYPH defendants, however, are without prejudice

            to the commencement of a new action against them for the same relief, under a new index

            number, in accordance with CPLR 205(a), within six months of the termination of the claims

            against them, after Juan Colon is appointed as the administrator the decedent’s estate by the

            Surrogate’s Court pursuant to the SCPA. As relevant here, CPLR 205(a) provides that:

                           “If an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by
                           a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the
                           defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a
                           final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action
                           upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences
                           within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have
                           been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action and
                           that service upon defendant is effected within such six-month period.”

            A “disposition based solely upon the absence of a duly appointed administrator does not

            preclude reprosecution of the underlying claim through the mechanism of CPLR 205 (subd [a])

             805029/2023 COLON DIAZ, RAFAEL ET AL vs. BAJKINA MD, DANIELLE ET AL                  Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 805029/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2024

            once a qualified administrator has been appointed” (Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242,

            252 [1980]; see Rodriguez v River Val. Care Ctr., Inc., 175 AD3d at 433; Snodgrass v

            Professional Radiology, 50 AD3d 883, 884-885 [2d Dept 2008]; Mendez v Kyung Yoo, 23 AD3d

            at 355; Bernardez v City of New York, 100 AD2d 798, 799-800 [1st Dept 1984]).

                   The court notes that the defendant Steven Miller, M.D., has neither answered, appeared,

            or moved with respect to the complaint. Although the plaintiffs have not filed proof of service of

            process upon him, the action remains ongoing as to him, since a court may only dismiss a

            complaint for failure to effect timely service of process “upon motion,” and not on its own

            initiative (see Rotering v Satz, 71 AD3d 861, 862 [2d Dept 2010]; Daniels v King Chicken &

            Stuff, Inc., 35 AD3d 345, 345 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent

            Assn., 159 AD3d 1448, 1452 [4th Dept 2018], affd 34 NY3d 1104 [2019]).

                   Accordingly, it is,

                   ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice as

            to the defendant Lumei Miller, M.D., incorrectly sued herein as Miller Lumie, M.D., and without

            prejudice to the commencement of a new action for the same relief against the defendants

            Danielle Bajakian, M.D., incorrectly sued herein as Danielle Bajkina, M.D., Jennifer H. Haythe,

            M.D., and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, incorrectly sued herein as New York

            Presbyterian-Columbia University Medical Center, under another index number, in accordance

            with CPLR 205(a); and it is further,

                   ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the action is severed against the defendants

            Danielle Bajkina, M.D., Miller Lumie, M.D., Jennifer H. Haythe, M.D., and New York

            Presbyterian-Columbia University Medical Center; and it is further,

                   ORDERED that the Clerk of the court shall enter judgment dismissing the complaint with

            prejudice as to the defendant Miller Lumie, M.D., and without prejudice as to the defendants

            Danielle Bajkina, M.D., Jennifer H. Haythe, M.D., and New York Presbyterian-Columbia

            University Medical Center.
             805029/2023 COLON DIAZ, RAFAEL ET AL vs. BAJKINA MD, DANIELLE ET AL                 Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 805029/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2024

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

                   3/29/2024                                                              $SIG$
                     DATE                                                         JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.

            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                   □
                                     X   GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                   □
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

            805029/2023 COLON DIAZ, RAFAEL ET AL vs. BAJKINA MD, DANIELLE ET AL                     Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]