ADDITIONAL CASES Barbara Resnick and Michelle Dellacava, As Co-Administrators of the Estate of Michael Paul Resnick, Deceased v. Barbara Resnick as Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Michael Resnick, Claimant The following papers were read and considered by the Court on claimants’ motion for consolidation (Motion No. M- 98196) and the State’s cross-motion for dismissal (Cross-Motion No. CM-98256): Notice of Motion, Attorney’s Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits, Memorandum of Law 1 Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney’s Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits 2 Attorney’s Reply Affirmation in Opposition to Cross-Motion and In Further Support of Motion 3 Claimants move to consolidate Claim Nos. 135206 and 137680 pursuant to CPLR §602 (a) and to deem Amended Claim No.137680 filed and served.1 The State cross-moves to dismiss Claim No. 135206 pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10 (2) and CPLR 3211 (a) (7) on the grounds that claimant, as the proposed administrator, did not have standing to bring a cause of action on behalf of the decedent and therefore the claim fails to state a cause of action and warrants dismissal. The State also cross-moves to dismiss Claim No. 137680 pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§10 (2) and 11 as untimely served and filed. Background On May 28, 2020, Michael Resnick, (hereinafter the decedent) died during his incarceration at Green Haven Correctional Facility. On August 14, 2020, Claim No. 135206, brought by Barbara Resnick as “Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Michael Resnick,” was filed with the Court alleging injuries and wrongful death due to the negligence and recklessness of the State in failing to provide the decedent with timely and appropriate medical care, diagnosis and treatment (Claimants’ Ex. B). A copy of Claim No. 135206 was served upon the attorney general’s office on November 4, 2020 (Claimants’ Ex. C). The State served and filed a Verified Answer asserting as affirmative defenses that, inter alia, claimant lacks standing and capacity to commence and maintain the pleaded claim and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim as the claim is not brought by a personal representative of the decedent or a duly qualified and appointed representative of the decedent’s estate (State’s Ex.2,
