§ 1015.Substitution upon death.
Article 10. Parties Generally · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
Full Text of CPLR 1015
Plain-English Summary
A party's death doesn't necessarily end a lawsuit, but it does require a procedural fix. CPLR 1015(a) sets the general rule: if a party dies and the underlying claim survives that death, the court orders substitution of the proper party, typically the executor or administrator of the deceased party's estate, to step into the case in their place.
Subdivision (b) covers a different scenario, where the right being enforced survives only among the parties who remain. If the action has multiple plaintiffs, or multiple defendants, and the right sought to be enforced survives to the ones still living, the death of one of them doesn't stop the case. No substitution is needed in that situation -- the death is noted on the record, and the action proceeds with the surviving parties.
The distinction turns on whether the deceased party's interest in the claim needs a new representative, or whether the claim continues without them because other parties already hold the same right or face the same liability. CPLR 1021 fills in what happens if substitution should occur under subdivision (a) but doesn't happen in time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens when a party dies during a lawsuit in New York?
Under CPLR 1015(a), if the claim survives the party's death, the court orders substitution of the proper party -- usually the executor or administrator of the estate -- to continue the case.
Do I need to substitute a party if one of several plaintiffs dies in New York?
Not always. CPLR 1015(b) provides that when the right being enforced survives only to the surviving plaintiffs, the action doesn't abate and no substitution is required; the death is noted on the record.
Who gets substituted for a deceased party in a New York lawsuit?
CPLR 1015(a) calls for substitution of the proper parties, which is typically the executor or administrator appointed to represent the deceased party's estate.
What happens if substitution isn't made after a party dies in New York?
CPLR 1021 addresses that situation directly, allowing dismissal as to the party for whom substitution should have been made if it isn't made within a reasonable time.
Does a lawsuit end automatically when a party dies in New York?
No. CPLR 1015 keeps the action alive as long as the underlying claim survives the death, either through substitution of a proper party or, when the right survives among co-parties, through the action continuing.
Advisory Committee Notes
Cf. Fed R Civ P 25(a). See also CPA §§ 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 478. As to when an action survives, see §§ 116 to 120 of the Decedent Estate Law.
In spite of its defects (see 4 Moore, Fed Prac 510 (Supp 1955)), Federal rule 25 has some good features — notably its brevity and directness. Hence in the drafting of the rules relating to substitution, it is taken as a model as to general form and structure, and its deficiencies are corrected by incorporating the better parts of the New York procedure. The substantive provisions of the sections of the CPA cited have been omitted.
The CPA provisions dealt to a considerable degree in terms of revivor instead of utilizing a motion procedure. Here the Federal rules seem superior. The motion regarding substitution may come from (1) the plaintiff who either wants the judgment to affect the successors of the deceased party or wishes to guard against a dismissal in case of failure to substitute, (2) a surviving defendant who wishes the successors brought in, or (3) the successors who wish to protect their interests.
The unfortunate time limit features of Federal rule 25 are omitted and instead it is provided in new CPLR § 1021 that when substitution is not made within a reasonable time the court may dismiss the action as to the party for whom substitution was ordered. This provision applies to substitution in all cases and not merely in case of death.
This section follows Federal rule 25(a)(2), which was undoubtedly suggested by CPA § 85.
The provisions of CPA § 89 for “nonabatement after verdict, report or decision” are omitted as unnecessary.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.