CPLR § 1015 Substitution upon death
CPLR § 1021 Substitution procedure; dismissal for failure to substitute; presentation of appeal
CPLR § 603 Severance and separate trials
CPLR R. 1010 Dismissal or separate trial of third-party complaint
Meczkowski v E.W. Howell Co., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 04874 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently
exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's
motion which was for leave to substitute Marek Meczkowski, as
administrator of the estate of Bogumil Meczkowski, in place of Bogumil
Meczkowski pursuant to CPLR 1015 and CPLR 1021 (see Roesenfeld v Hotel Corp. of Am., 20 NY2d 25; Encalada v City of New York, 280 AD2d 578; Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133
AD2d 610). In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its
discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was
to sever the third-party action to avoid further delay of this action,
which was commenced more than nine years ago (see CPLR 603, 1010; see also Singh v City of New York, 294 AD2d 422; Garcia v Gesher Realty Corp., 280 AD2d 440; Ambriano v Bowman, 245 AD2d 404; [*2]Klein v City of Long Beach, 154 AD2d 346).
The bold is mine.
bruteforcelawyer.com 