§ 1004.When joinder unnecessary.
Article 10. Parties Generally · Last amended 1981 · Last verified July 21, 2026
Full Text of CPLR 1004
Plain-English Summary
Some people appear in court not for themselves but on behalf of someone else's interest. CPLR 1004 lets a defined list of representatives -- executors, administrators, guardians of an infant's property, committees for incompetent persons, conservators, trustees of an express trust, insurers holding a loan or subrogation receipt, and anyone who contracted in their own name for another's benefit -- sue or be sued without drawing the represented person into the case as a named party.
The logic follows from the role these representatives already occupy. An executor administering an estate, or a trustee managing a trust, already stands in for the underlying interest by law; forcing the beneficiary or the estate itself into the caption would add nothing but paperwork. The rule spares the case that extra step, letting these representatives litigate under their own names while still binding the interest they represent.
The rule leaves the door open for a court to require more. If a judge decides the underlying party needs to be joined for a case to be handled properly, an order can still direct that joinder, notwithstanding CPLR 1004's default. What the section removes is an automatic requirement, not a court's discretion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an executor have to join the estate's beneficiaries in a lawsuit in New York?
No. CPLR 1004 lets an executor or administrator sue or be sued in that representative capacity without joining the beneficiaries whose interests are at stake.
Can a trustee sue in their own name in New York?
Yes. CPLR 1004 lets a trustee of an express trust sue or be sued without joining the trust's beneficiaries as parties.
Who can sue or be sued without joining the person they represent under CPLR 1004?
The list includes executors, administrators, guardians of an infant's property, committees for incompetent persons, conservators, trustees of an express trust, insurers holding a loan or subrogation receipt, and people who contracted for another's benefit.
Can a court still require joinder despite CPLR 1004?
Yes. CPLR 1004 applies except where the court orders otherwise, so a judge can still direct that the represented person be joined when the case calls for it.
What is a subrogation receipt under CPLR 1004?
It's an agreement in which an insured person assigns an insurer the right to pursue a claim on their behalf, which lets the insurer sue in its own name under this section without joining the insured.
Advisory Committee Notes
The first part of CPA § 210, relating to real party in interest, is omitted for the following reasons: (1) it is unnecessary since the law would be the same without any express rule, (2) it is an inept statement of an obvious principle of substantive law, (3) it misleadingly seems to say that the action must be brought by the party to be benefited, and (4) the second part of the section is not an exception to the first part as therein stated.
This section preserves the second part of CPA § 210 and, indeed, extends it by declaring that the beneficiary need not be joined in actions against, as well as by, the enumerated fiduciaries. Cf. Wis State § 260.15 (1945); NJ R Civ P 40:30-1. The entire rule is declaratory and hence not vital, but, unlike the “real party in interest” provision, it is helpful and not misleading. The advisory committee considered but did not accept the suggestion that the section be extended to general and testamentary guardians and committees. Cf. CPA §§ 1377, 1523; Fed R Civ P 17(a).
There is authority in New York that the beneficiaries of a trust should be joined with the trustee in an action to set aside the trust, although it is doubtful if the beneficiaries are indispensable. See McKnight v Bank of New York & Trust Co. 254 NY 417, 173 NE 569 (1930). With this possibility in mind, it is provided in this section that the rule excusing joinder of the beneficiary does not apply if the court orders otherwise. The court might even be justified in ordering joinder of the beneficiaries when the action is brought by the fiduciary. No reason is apparent why different general rules should apply for plaintiffs and defendants.
The entire category of persons authorized by statute has been eliminated as unnecessary, since, if a particular statute authorizes the name action, no further authority is necessary.
The concluding clause of Federal rule 17(a) is “and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States.” This provision is related to the real party in interest portion of the rule rather than the provision excusing joinder of beneficiaries. It is entirely unnecessary in view of the fact that the portion of the New York section relating to the real party in interest has been eliminated.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308; amd, L 1963, ch 532, § 10; L 1981, ch 115, § 18, eff May 18, 1981.