Lopez-Martinez v Leroux
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury procedure involving the effect of a plaintiff's death, substitution of a representative, and whether a prior dismissal for failure to substitute extinguished only the decedent's claims or the entire action.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Sandra M. Ferrer's motion to lift the stay, restore the case to the active calendar, and amend the caption because it concluded that a 2019 order had dismissed the entire action.
The Appellate Division reversed the July 17, 2025 order denying Ferrer's motion and sent the matter back for a determination on the motion's merits.
Under CPLR 1021 [if the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made], dismissal for failure to substitute applies only to the party needing substitution. The defendants did not provide the underlying motion papers or otherwise show that the 2019 order properly dismissed Ferrer's separate claims along with the decedent's claims.
Background
Sandra M. Ferrer and her husband, Mario Lopez-Martinez, sued in February 2017 for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Lopez-Martinez died on August 8, 2017, which stayed the action. In January 2025, Ferrer moved to lift the stay, restore the case to the active calendar, and amend the caption to remove the decedent's name. The defendants opposed, arguing that no proper substitution had been made for the decedent's estate and that a November 12, 2019 order had already dismissed the entire action. Ferrer replied that the 2019 order dismissed only the decedent's claims.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied Ferrer's motion solely on the ground that the 2019 order had dismissed the action in its entirety.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the lower court should not have treated the 2019 order as dismissing Ferrer's claims. It explained that CPLR 1021 authorizes dismissal only as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, not other parties. Because the defendants failed to submit the underlying motion papers or otherwise establish that the 2019 order properly dismissed Ferrer's claims, the appellate court reversed and remitted for a merits determination of Ferrer's motion.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that when a party dies and substitution is not timely made, the sanction under CPLR 1021 is limited to that deceased party's claims unless a basis is shown for broader relief. Courts and litigants cannot assume that a dismissal for failure to substitute automatically terminates separately asserted claims of surviving co-plaintiffs.
A failure to substitute a representative for a deceased plaintiff does not, by itself, wipe out a surviving co-plaintiff's claims; absent proof that a prior order validly dismissed those claims too, the surviving plaintiff is entitled to have the court consider a motion to lift the stay and proceed.