90/180 from the Fourth Department
May 10, 2016 No Comments
Williams v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 03607 (4th Dept. 2016) The no-fault geeks can skip passed this post. As to the others: what is necessary to
Williams v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 03607 (4th Dept. 2016) The no-fault geeks can skip passed this post. As to the others: what is necessary to
Armella v Olson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09467 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2015) “Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his treating physician, who reviewed plaintiff’s cervical MRI
Waring v Sunrise Yonkers SL, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09174 (1st Dept. 2015) (1) “$100,000 for past pain and suffering, $500,000 for future pain and suffering,
Dov Berkowitz – Oh no. First, happy Labor Day here. Second, this article was too good not to post, although it is the type of red
Ocean v Hossain, 2015 NY Slip Op 02840 (1st Dept. 2015) “The court concluded that Dr. Bhatt’s affirmation could not be considered because he was no longer
Campbell v Fischetti, 2015 NY Slip Op 01898 (1st Dept. 2015) “Furthermore, an X ray taken on the accident date revealed that plaintiff had sustained only a
Mejia v Ramos, 2015 NY Slip Op 00311 (1st Dept. 2015) To the extent plaintiff contends the [surgical] report itself found abnormalities in the knee, such symptoms,
Crewe v Pisanova, 2015 NY Slip Op 00041 (4th Dept. 2015) (on to permanent consequential/significan limitation) “Defendants’ expert opined that plaintiff did not have a serious injury
Vargas v Marte, 2014 NY Slip Op 08561 (2d Dept. 2014) Triable issue of fact on causation “In particular, plaintiff’s surgeon, recognizing that plaintiff had sustained a
Fludd v Pena, 2014 NY Slip Op 07747 (1st Dept. 2014) This 5102(d) case is interesting because it stands for the proposition that the failure to make
Sutliff v Qadar, 2014 NY Slip Op 07769 (1st Dept. 2014) This case really discusses the danger on the personal injury side of the “significant limitation prong”
Vale v Floyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 51241(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014) This was a 325(d) personal injury case in Civil Queens. These are perhaps the only
Acosta v Vidal, 2014 NY Slip Op 05025 (1st Dept. 2014) “[h]e failed to address the conflicting findings made by plaintiff’s physical therapist of normal range
Fisher v Hill, 2014 NY Slip Op 00830 (4th Dept. 2014) It is infrequent that I post on the serious injury threshold. But a Plaintiff on a
Ramkumar v Grand Style Transp. Enters. Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 06638 (2013) “The Appellate Division’s requirement that plaintiff either offer documentary evidence to support his
Komina v Gil, 2013 NY Slip Op 04744 (1st Dept. 2013) “Furthermore, plaintiff’s chiropractor made no attempt to explain the conflicting findings of the tests he
Frias v Son Tien Liu, 2013 NY Slip Op 04736 (1st Dept. 2013) From the world of 5102(d) land: Defendants made a prima facie showing of
Brand v Evangelista, 103 AD3d 539 (1st Dept. 2013) “[d]efendant’s physicians required to review plaintiff’s medical records, since they detailed the specific tests they used in their
Doran v McNulty, 2013 NY Slip Op 04572 (2d Dept. 2013) “At the damages trial the plaintiff testified that she had experienced, and been treated for, pain
DiBenedetto v Abreu, 2013 NY Slip Op 04570 (2d Dept. 2013) There have been so many weird bodily injury cases lately that I feel the need to
