Marte v. Graber
58 A.D.3d 1, 867 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action commenced against a person who is already deceased is a nullity, as a court cannot obtain jurisdiction over a non-existent party, and therefore, neither substitution nor amendment of the summons can properly occur.
Facts:
- Herman Graber, an attorney, died on April 2, 2005.
- In July 2005, Amin Marte, acting pro se and while incarcerated, filed an unsigned, undated summons and complaint in New York County, alleging legal malpractice by Herman Graber.
- Marte subsequently discovered that Graber had died approximately three months before the summons and complaint were filed.
- Sandra Graber was appointed as the personal representative of Herman Graber’s estate.
- On June 7, 2006, Marte, now represented by an attorney, moved to substitute Sandra Graber as the defendant and to amend the summons and complaint, changing the cause of action from legal malpractice to breach of contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Amin Marte filed a summons and complaint in Supreme Court, New York County, alleging legal malpractice against Herman Graber.
- Marte moved by order to show cause for a 'stay' to ascertain the identity of Graber’s personal representative, which the Supreme Court interpreted as an application for an extension of the statutory 120-day period for service.
- The Supreme Court issued an ex parte order extending Marte’s time to serve.
- The Supreme Court subsequently issued a second ex parte order extending the time for service through July 2006.
- Marte, now represented by counsel, moved pursuant to CPLR 1021 to substitute Sandra Graber (Herman Graber's wife and personal representative of his estate) as the defendant.
- Marte also moved for leave to amend the summons pursuant to CPLR 305(c), attaching a proposed amended summons and a verified amended complaint alleging breach of contract.
- The motion court (Supreme Court) granted Marte's motion to amend the summons and substitute the voluntary administrator for the deceased defendant, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint (order entered April 3, 2007).
- Sandra Graber filed a notice of appeal and a motion to reargue, contending the proceeding was a nullity from its inception.
- The motion court granted reargument but adhered to its prior order (decision entered August 14, 2007).
- Sandra Graber appealed the August 14, 2007 order, and the prior April 3, 2007 order, to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court obtain jurisdiction over a legal action 'commenced' by filing a summons and complaint after the sole named defendant has already died, thereby permitting subsequent motions for substitution of the estate's personal representative or amendment of the summons?
Opinions:
Majority - Catterson, J.
No, a court does not obtain jurisdiction over a legal action 'commenced' by filing a summons and complaint after the sole named defendant has already died, and such an action is a nullity, thus precluding valid motions for substitution or amendment of the summons. The court reasoned that it is well-established New York law that a party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person, meaning the action was a nullity from its inception. Therefore, the court never obtained jurisdiction over the deceased individual. The court further clarified that CPLR 1015(a) and 1021, which govern substitution of parties, only apply if an action has been properly commenced and is 'pending' against an actual 'party.' Since Herman Graber was deceased before filing, he was never a party to a properly commenced action, and thus, no valid substitution could be effected. Similarly, CPLR 305(c) allows for amendment of a summons, but this typically occurs after service of process. In this case, process was never and could never be served on Herman Graber, meaning there was no valid summons to amend. Any orders issued by the motion court were thus void due to the lack of jurisdiction over a living defendant.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the fundamental jurisdictional principle that an action cannot be commenced against a deceased person. It clarifies the strict limitations on CPLR 1015 (substitution) and CPLR 305(c) (amendment of summons), emphasizing that these provisions presuppose a properly commenced and pending action against a live party. The ruling prevents the judicial system from wasting resources on 'nullities' and provides clear guidance on the proper procedure for suing an estate, which requires naming the personal representative from the outset. This case will serve as a critical precedent for ensuring procedural regularity and proper jurisdiction in New York civil litigation involving deceased individuals.
