Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of ST. LUKE'S-ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER, Petitioner, For the Appointment, etc., Marie H., Deceased Respondent, The City of New York, Respondent-Appellant, The State of New York, et al., Respondents, Frank Handelman, Substituted Respondent-Respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 2, 1998, which substituted respondent Frank Handelman for the deceased respondent nunc pro tunc as of the date of her death, December 27, 1995, and awarded prevailing party counsel fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court's substitution of Frank Handelman, the deceased respondent's assigned counsel in her Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 proceeding, was a provident exercise of discretion pursuant to CPLR 1015(a) in light of the identity of interest between the decedent and Handelman (see, Rocha Toussier y Asociados, S.C. v. Rivero, 184 A.D.2d 398, 585 N.Y.S.2d 385).
The award of counsel fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 was also appropriate because the issues raised in the Article 81 proceeding, as to whether the decedent was entitled to assigned counsel and whether the City of New York should pay for said counsel, involved the litigation of constitutional questions, and although the matter was ultimately resolved on State statutory grounds (Matter of St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 89 N.Y.2d 889, 653 N.Y.S.2d 257, 675 N.E.2d 1209), “attorney's fees are available under section 1988 where relief is sought on both State and Federal grounds, but nevertheless awarded on State grounds only” (Matter of Thomasel v. Perales, 78 N.Y.2d 561, 568, 578 N.Y.S.2d 110, 585 N.E.2d 359).
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them unpersuasive.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 25, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)