Blog

Alrof citing again – never a good thingApril 19, 2014

Muhammad Tahir, M.D., P.C. v Hertz Claims Mgt.,2014 NY Slip Op 50625(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.”

“Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).”

If you follow this blog, you will know that “Alrof” is not really good law.  For reasons I am not even going to discuss on here, I ended up challenging this proposition of law and prevailed on it.  The First Department (ATIC v. Lucas), the Second Department (Interboro v. Clennon) and this Court (Quality v. Interboro; Ortho Products v. Interboro) have all found that Alrof does not mean what it says.

But, in this Court, if you wish to resurrect W&Z v. Amex, the affidavit from the “partner” had better lead that horse to water and make it drink it.  And, it is not the quantity of verbiage that is in the affirmation which will win the day, it is how you present it, lay it out and assert it.

 

One Response

  1. The Hater says:

    Impressive career in no fault. I’m sure this is what you dreamed of when you took the LSAT. Show downs at the mighty App Term in front of a bunch of party hacks who pressed the flesh and invested a hundred thousand dollars with ole Clarence Norman to masquerade as members of the bench.

    What a f*%king dismal state.

    And what did the mat judges in Brooklyn get. Cheap cigars. A few 20s and a bottle of Manashevetz.

Leave a Reply