IN RE ROY TAYLOR, [M-1876] pet, v. HON. JILL KONVISER, ETC., res

10214. IN RE ROY TAYLOR, [M-1876] pet, v. HON. JILL KONVISER, ETC., res — ROY TAYLOR, PETITIONER PRO SE. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for res — THE ABOVENAMED PETITIONER HAVING PRESENTED AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT PRAYING FOR AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, NOW, UPON READING AND FILING THE PAPERS IN SAID PROCEEDING, AND DUE DELIBERATION HAVING BEEN HAD THEREON, IT IS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATION BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS DENIED AND THE PETITION DISMISSED, WITHOUT COSTS OR DISBURSEMENTS. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, FEINMAN, JJ. 10216CATHERINE HUMPHRIES, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM MISTOFSKY, petres, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NY INC., res-res — Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors, LLP, Garden City Park (Michael F. Vecchione of counsel), for ap — Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Kevin M. Berry of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 4, 2012, which, among other things, granted petitioner's motion to approve, nunc pro tunc, settlements previously entered into between petitioner and four nonparties (defendants in the underlying class action asbestos litigation), and directed petitioner's counsel to amend the caption to reflect the substitution of the estate of the deceased as petitioner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10214. IN RE ROY TAYLOR, [M-1876] pet, v. HON. JILL KONVISER, ETC., res — ROY TAYLOR, PETITIONER PRO SE. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for res — THE ABOVENAMED PETITIONER HAVING PRESENTED AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT PRAYING FOR AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, NOW, UPON READING AND FILING THE PAPERS IN SAID PROCEEDING, AND DUE DELIBERATION HAVING BEEN HAD THEREON, IT IS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATION BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS DENIED AND THE PETITION DISMISSED, WITHOUT COSTS OR DISBURSEMENTS. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, FEINMAN, JJ. 10216CATHERINE HUMPHRIES, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM MISTOFSKY, petres, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NY INC., res-res — Vecchione, Vecchione & Connors, LLP, Garden City Park (Michael F. Vecchione of counsel), for ap — Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York (Kevin M. Berry of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 4, 2012, which, among other things, granted petitioner’s motion to approve, nunc pro tunc, settlements previously entered into between petitioner and four nonparties (defendants in the underlying class action asbestos litigation), and directed petitioner’s counsel to amend the caption to reflect the substitution of the estate of the deceased as petitioner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted a nunc pro tunc substitution of petitioner, where she had been appointed executor of decedent’s estate shortly after his death, retained the same counsel, and actively participated in the litigation before the Workers’ Compensation Board and the court (cf. Griffin v. Manning, 36 AD3d 530, 532 [1st Dept 2007]).

IN RE ROY TAYLOR, [M-1876] pet, v. HON. JILL KONVISER, ETC., res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal