The trap called 2106
November 14, 2010 No Comments
This is the fourth time I think someone got hit by Mercury – I meant me – on this issue. High Quality Med., P.C. v Mercury
This is the fourth time I think someone got hit by Mercury – I meant me – on this issue. High Quality Med., P.C. v Mercury
Green v Fairway Operating Corp., 2010 NY Slip Op 03481 (1st Dept. 2010) “The affidavit of plaintiff’s witness, purportedly sworn to in the Dominican Republic, lacks
“Furthermore, the computerized range-of-motion tests referred to in Dr. Dudelzak’s affirmations were not in admissible form because they were not affirmed by someone with personal knowledge
Another owner of a medical facility, who improperly used the affirmation device, succumbed to Defendant’s summary judgment motion based upon the medical necessity defense. Doshi Diagnostic
“Motion granted and complaint dismissed on the condition that defendant, within 60 days of service upon it of a copy of this order with notice of
Betz v Daniel Conti, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00086 (2d Dept. 2010) “Although the affidavit of the defendants’ expert, which was notarized outside the state,
The Courts seem to be all over the place with the certificate of conformity requirement for out of state affidavits found in CPLR 2309. This statute
“The magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter the MRI) report of Dr. Steven Brownstein concerning McMullin’s lumbar spine, the MRI report of Dr. Dennis Rossi concerning McMullin’s cervical
What happens if you draft an affirmation that is missing the magical “2106” language and the defect is properly objected to? You lose. Can you move
In the world of appellate practice, there are three types of appeals you can take up. The first type of appeal involves the instance where you
I got that line from another blogger. That comment refers to a case that is anything but remarkable. Although there was a long and very thoughtful
