Court Opinion

ID: 9958761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:12.794528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.289669
License: Public Domain

Brown v Mount Sinai W.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31069(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 805247/2023
                  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. 805247/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                                                PART                              56M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.           805247/2023
             PAULETTE BROWN, as proposed Administrator
             of the Estate of KEVIN BROWN,                                                          MOTION DATE         11/08/2023

                                                         Plaintiff,                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001

                                                 -v-
             MOUNT SINAI WEST, PARK TERRACE CARE CENTER,
                                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             INC., doing business as PARK TERRACE CARE CENTER,
             JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2,                                                                    MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
            13, 14
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      DISMISSAL/3211(a)(3)                 .

                      In this action to recover damages, inter alia, for medical malpractice and statutory

            nursing home negligence, the defendant Mount Sinai West moves pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3)

            to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, based on the plaintiff’s lack of capacity to

            prosecute the action. The plaintiff opposes the motion. The motion is granted, and the

            complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against Mount Sinai West, albeit without prejudice to

            commencement of a new action against it for the same relief pursuant to CPLR 205(a) by a duly

            authorized representative of the estate of the plaintiff’s decedent, Kevin Brown.

                      The plaintiff’s proposed decedent died on January 13, 2022. The plaintiff commenced

            this action on April 28, 2023. As of that date, the plaintiff had not been issued letters of

            administration or letters testamentary by the Surrogate’s Court pursuant to SCPA articles 10 or

            14, respectively. The defendant made the instant motion on June 20, 2023 (see CPLR 2211).

            In an affirmation dated September 26, 2023, the plaintiff’s attorney asserted that the plaintiff had

            been issued letters of voluntary administration with respect to the decedent’s estate on

            September 1, 2023, and attached a copy of the relevant certificate of voluntary administration.
             805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL                                                     Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 805247/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                      In her summons and complaint, the plaintiff characterized herself 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]). Hence, 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, P.C.,

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

            2015]).

                      A “voluntary administrator” also lacks capacity to prosecute either a personal injury

            “survival” action or a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate of a decedent. The SCPA

            allows for the appointment of a voluntary administrator of a small estate, defined as an estate

            “having a gross value of $50,000 or less exclusive of property required to be set off under EPTL

            5-3.1(a)” (SCPA 1301[1]), and defines a “voluntary administrator” as “a person who qualifies

            and undertakes to settle the estate of the decedent without the formality of court administration

            as hereinafter provided” (SCPA 1301[2]). Crucially, however, “[t]he voluntary administrator shall
             805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL                                Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 805247/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

            have no power to enforce a claim for the wrongful death of or a claim for personal injuries to the

            decedent” (SCPA 1306[3]). Consequently a “voluntary administrator” has no capacity to

            prosecute a personal injury “survival” action or a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate of

            a decedent (see Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 246 [1980]; Rodriguez v River Val.

            Care Ctr., Inc., 175 AD3d at 433; Richards v Lourdes Hosp., 58 AD3d at 927-928; Ramos v

            Kalsow, 2023 NY Slip Op 32954[U], *3, 2023 NY Misc LEXIS 4648, *4 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County,

            Aug. 24, 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.]).

                    The complaint thus must be dismissed insofar as asserted against Mount Sinai West.

                    The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to the commencement of a new action

            against that defendant 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 the defendant Mount

            Sinai West, after the plaintiff is appointed as the executor or administrator the decedent’s estate

            by the Surrogate’s Court pursuant to SCPA article 10. 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])

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

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

            Radiology, 50 AD3d 883, 884-885 [2d Dept 2008]; Bernardez v City of New York, 100 AD2d

            798, 799-800 [1st Dept 1984]).

             805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL                               Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 805247/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                    In light of the foregoing, it is,

                    ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice,

            insofar as asserted against the defendant Mount Sinai West; and it is further,

                    ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the action is severed as against Mount Sinai

            West; and it is further,

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

            without prejudice insofar as asserted against the defendant Mount Sinai West.

                    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

             805247/2023 BROWN, PAULETTE vs. MOUNT SINAI WEST ET AL                                    Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]