Failure to comply with 2106 is somewhat excusable
Loucks v Klimek, 2013 NY Slip Op 05110 (4th Dept. 2013) “Finally, we conclude that the court properly determined that plaintiff substantially complied with the requirement
Loucks v Klimek, 2013 NY Slip Op 05110 (4th Dept. 2013) “Finally, we conclude that the court properly determined that plaintiff substantially complied with the requirement
Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50063(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013) “Defendant also submitted a peer review
Galetta v Galetta, 2012 NY Slip Op 04865 (4th Dept. 2012) We here about the now dead(?) certificate of conformity. How about the certificate of acknowledgment
Fredette v Town of Southampton, 2012 NY Slip Op 03595 (2d Dept. 2012) “it improvidently exercised its discretion in excluding from consideration the affidavits of Ken
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Dellarmo, 2012 NY Slip Op 02481 (2d Dept. 2012) “The plaintiff’s failure to comply with CPLR 2309(c) in submitting various documents,
Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50148(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012) “In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted a doctor’s affirmation
Richmond Pain Mgt., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52015(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) (my case) Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins.
Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52019(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) “In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation
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
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