If a receiver is appointed for a party, or a corporate party is dissolved, the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.
§ 1017.Substitution in case of receivership or dissolution of a corporation
Article 10. Parties Generally · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 1017 requires the court to order substitution of the proper parties when a receiver is appointed for a party or when a corporate party dissolves during the litigation.
Full Text of CPLR 1017
Plain-English Summary
Corporations don't always outlast the lawsuits they're part of, and individual parties sometimes end up under a receiver's control. CPLR 1017 addresses both situations with the same fix: if a receiver is appointed for a party, or a corporate party dissolves, the court orders substitution of the proper parties to keep the case going.
A receivership shifts control over a party's assets and affairs to a court-appointed receiver, and a dissolved corporation no longer exists as the entity that was originally sued or that originally sued. In either case, someone else needs to stand in -- the receiver, or whoever now holds the dissolved corporation's rights and obligations -- for the litigation to proceed on solid footing.
As with the other substitution provisions in this article, the mechanics of moving for that substitution, and the consequences of failing to make it in time, run through CPLR 1021.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a corporate party dissolves during a New York lawsuit?
Under CPLR 1017, if a corporate party dissolves, the court orders substitution of the proper parties, typically whoever now holds the dissolved corporation's rights and obligations.
What happens if a receiver is appointed for a party in a New York case?
CPLR 1017 requires the court to order substitution of the proper parties when a receiver is appointed for a party during the litigation.
Does a lawsuit end when a corporation dissolves in New York?
No. CPLR 1017 keeps the case alive through substitution of the proper parties in place of the dissolved corporation.
Who moves for substitution when a corporation dissolves under CPLR 1017?
CPLR 1021 sets out the general substitution procedure, letting the corporation's successors or representatives, or any other party, move for substitution.
What is the difference between CPLR 1016 and CPLR 1017?
CPLR 1016 covers substitution after a party is adjudicated incompetent or gets a conservator; CPLR 1017 covers substitution after a receiver is appointed for a party or a corporate party dissolves.
Advisory Committee Notes
The statutory law on the subject of substitution in case of dissolution of a corporation seems to be in a state of confusion. Article 10 of the Stock Corporation Law deals with dissolution without judicial proceedings. Section 105(8) provides that such a corporation continues for the purpose of paying debts, collecting assets and winding up affairs and “may sue or be sued in its corporate name.” Subd 12 of the same section provides that any pending suits at the time of dissolution “may proceed, against the surviving directors, as trustees, who may continue to be sued in the corporate name.” See also Gen Corp Law § 29; Tax Law § 203-a. The general provision for receivers is § 106 of the Stock Corporation Law. See also Gen Corp Law, art 12. These provisions are not articulate on the subject of substitution in case of appointment of a receiver for a corporate party. Compare CPA § 977-b(19), where substitution is contemplated in case of appointment of a receiver for a foreign corporation.
Most of the case law regarding substitution in case of dissolution deals with the situation where a receiver is appointed for a corporation. The general rule seems to be that the receiver must be substituted in pending actions. See Matter of French, 181 App Div 719, 168 NY Supp 988 (1st Dept), affd 224 NY 555, 120 NE 863 (1918); Holmes v Camp, 186 App Div 675, 175 NY Supp 349 (1st Dept), affd 227 NY 635, 126 NE 910 (1919); Maxrice Realty Corp. v B/G Sandwich Shops, Inc. 239 App Div 472, 267 NY Supp 863 (1st Dept 1933); cf. Decker v Gardner, 124 NY 334, 26 NE 814 (1891) (temporary receiver); Honegger v Wettstein, 94 NY 252 (1884) receiver cannot intervene; Sturges v Vanderbilt, 73 NY 384 (1878) (foreign corporation); Sinnott v Hanan, 214 NY 454, 108 NE 858 (1915) (same); Chaplin v Selznick, 293 NY 529, 58 NE2d 719 (1944) (same); Eisenstadt v Heffernan, 256 App Div 488, 10 NYS2d 868 (1st Dept 1939), affd 283 NY 478, 27 NE2d 439 (1940) (dissolution under NY Tax Law).
In this condition of the law, the framing of a specific procedural rule is difficult. This section seems desirable but its impact must await the clarification of substantive corporation law now being undertaken. See Senate Resolution No. 27, 1956.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: CPLR 1017 New Yorkcorporate dissolution lawsuit New Yorkreceiver appointed lawsuit substitutionsubstitution receivership CPLRdissolved corporation party to lawsuit New Yorkwhat happens when defendant corporation dissolvesNew York civil procedure corporate dissolution substitution