From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsch v. LoPresti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 2000
272 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted April 5, 2000.

May 22, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated June 9, 1999, which denied their motion to amend the caption to add "Cynthia Deutsch, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maxwell Deutsch" and granted the respective cross motions of the defendants Anthony LoPresti, John Biordi, and Winthrop University Hospital to dismiss the first and fifth causes of action insofar as asserted against them.

Doniger Engstrand, New York, N.Y. (Frank S. Gattuso of counsel), for appellants.

Gallagher Walker Bianco Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Lisa Ceraulo of counsel), for respondent Anthony LoPresti.

Law Offices of Charles X. Connick, PLLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara A. Myers of counsel), for respondent John Biordi.

Furey, Kerley, Walsh, Matera Cinquemani, P.C., Mineola, N Y (Lauren B. Bristol of counsel), for respondent Winthrop University Hospital.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the respondents' respective cross motions to dismiss the first and fifth causes of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering of the decedent and wrongful death insofar as asserted against them, on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have the capacity to sue. The plaintiffs commenced this action individually and on behalf of their infant son, but they had not obtained letters of administration at the time that the action was commenced (see, Goldberg v. Camp Mikan-Recro, 42 N.Y.2d 1029; McCormack v. County of Westchester, 255 A.D.2d 296; LaBoy v. Children's Hosp. of Buffalo, 249 A.D.2d 944).

The plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to grant them leave to commence a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a) is not properly before this court, since it was not raised before the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

MANGANO, P.J., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Deutsch v. LoPresti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 2000
272 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Deutsch v. LoPresti

Case Details

Full title:CYNTHIA DEUTSCH, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. ANTHONY LoPRESTI, ET AL.…

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

Date published: May 22, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 441

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank v. Doura

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's contention that this…

U.S. Bank v. Doura

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's contention that this…