Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County
Queens Neurology, P.C. (a/a/o JOSE HERNANDEZ, et al.), Plaintiff,
Travelers Property & Casualty Ins. Co., et al., Defendants.
TSIRELMAN P.C. Counsel for Plaintiff
Neurology, P.C. As Assignee of Jose Hernandez, et al.
Golodkeyer, Esq. Stefan M. Belinfanti, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF
PRINTZ & GOLDSTEIN Counsel for Defendant
M. Aquino, Esq. Tali K. Hernstat, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ALOY
O. IBUZOR Counsel for Defendant
Medgine Bernadotte, Esq.
C.V. Katsanos, J.
Neurology, P.C. ("Plaintiff") commenced
twenty-seven separate actions against various defendants on
or about September 6, 2001, October 23, 2001 or January 10,
2002. Thirteen of said actions were against defendant GEICO
Casualty Company ("Defendant GEICO").
In each matter, Plaintiff retained the same attorney of
record, who was subsequently suspended from practice on or
about May 18, 2004 and was disbarred on or about October 11,
2005. All twenty-seven cases have been converted to inactive
or disposed on the Court's docket.
about October 20, 2009, New York State consented to
Plaintiff's voluntary dissolution. Despite such
dissolution, Plaintiff was not substituted as a party in any
of the matters.
seven years after its dissolution, Plaintiff now moves to:
(1) consolidate the aforementioned twenty-seven actions
pursuant to CPLR 602 for the sole purpose of its motion; (2)
substitute the attorney of record in each action and compel
the transfer of all files related to each action; and (3)
stay all proceedings for 90 days pursuant to CPLR 2201.
Plaintiff's motion was denied with respect to three
matters involving defendant Travelers Property & Casualty
Insurance Company due to Plaintiff's failure to provide
proof of service.
accordance with the recitation requirements of CPLR 2219 (a),
the Court considered: (1) Plaintiff's order to show
cause, Plaintiff counsel's affirmation and attached
exhibits; (2) Defendant GEICO's affirmation in opposition
and attached exhibits; and (3) Plaintiff counsel's reply
motion must be denied because Plaintiff is a dissolved
corporation and has failed to establish that it can seek
relief from this Court. Plaintiff's arguments that it
remains entitled to relief despite dissolution lack merit.
Except in limited circumstances permitted by statute, upon
dissolution, a corporation is "legally dead" and
lacks the capacity to use the courts of this State to enforce
obligations (Lorisa Captial Corp. v Gallo, 119
A.D.2d 99, 111 [2d Dept 1986]; see 80-02 Leasehold, LLC v
CM Realty Holdings Corp., 123 A.D.3d 872, 873 [2d Dept
2014]). Plaintiff asserts that section 1006 of New York's
Business Corporation Law ...