| Meczkowski v E.W. Howell Co., Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04874 [63 AD3d 803] |
| June 9, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marek Meczkowski, as Administrator of the Estate of BogumilMeczkowski, Deceased, Respondent, v E.W. Howell Co., Inc., Defendant andThird-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Frontier Insurance Company et al., Third-PartyDefendants-Respondents. |
—[*1] O'Dwyer & Bernstein, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven Aripotch of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiffappeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Jackson, J.), dated March 26, 2008, and (2) so much of an amended order of the samecourt dated December 8, 2008, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were forleave to substitute Marek Meczkowski, as administrator of the estate of Bogumil Meczkowski, inthe place of Bogumil Meczkowski pursuant to CPLR 1015 and 1021, and to sever the third-partyaction.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as it was superseded by the amendedorder; and it is further,
Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretionin granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to substitute MarekMeczkowski, as administrator of the estate of Bogumil Meczkowski, in place of BogumilMeczkowski pursuant to CPLR 1015 and 1021 (see Rosenfeld v Hotel Corp. of Am., 20NY2d 25 [1967]; Encalada v City of New York, 280 AD2d 578 [2001]; Egrini vBrookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610 [1987]). In addition, the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was tosever the third-party action to avoid further delay of this action, which was commenced morethan nine years ago (see CPLR 603, 1010; see also Singh v City of New York,294 AD2d 422 [2002]; Garcia v Gesher Realty Corp., 280 AD2d 440 [2001];Ambriano v Bowman, 245 AD2d 404 [1997]; [*2]Klein v City of Long Beach, 154 AD2d 346 [1989]).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Santucci andBalkin, JJ., concur.