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: Joseph DUBINSKY, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Gloria D'AMICO, etc., et al., Respondents.
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent Gloria D'Amico, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to accept a summons and complaint in a medical malpractice action bearing index number 9165/2000 which was assigned to a related guardianship matter, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated June 13, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the proceeding is converted to an action for a judgment declaring that the medical malpractice action was properly commenced as adjunct to the guardianship proceeding, the notice of petition is deemed to be the summons, and the petition is deemed to be the complaint (see CPLR 103[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, and it is declared that the medical malpractice action was properly commenced as adjunct to the guardianship proceeding; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.
Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the appellants that the malpractice action, timely commenced by Pauline Damiani on behalf of her incapacitated father, was “adjunct” to the guardianship proceeding she initiated previously. Notwithstanding that the defendants in the medical malpractice action were not parties to the guardianship proceeding (cf. Mandel v. Waltco Truck Equip. Co., 243 A.D.2d 542, 663 N.Y.S.2d 106), the guardianship proceeding was commenced by Damiani to gain standing to prosecute the malpractice action. In light of the affirmative error by the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which was central to the initial filing, the failure of the defendants in the medical malpractice action to raise any relevant objection to the manner of commencement of the malpractice action (see Matter of Fry v. Village of Tarrytown, 89 N.Y.2d 714, 658 N.Y.S.2d 205, 680 N.E.2d 578), and the total absence of prejudice to the defendants in the medical malpractice action (see Ruiz v. New York City Hous. Auth., 216 A.D.2d 258, 629 N.Y.S.2d 222), we find that the adjunct medical malpractice action was properly commenced under the index number assigned to the guardianship proceeding (see Papikian v. McGrath, 283 A.D.2d 471, 724 N.Y.S.2d 485).
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 28, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)