The denial need not be authenticated as a busines record
December 8, 2013 2 Comments
Jesa Med. Supply, Inc. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2013 NY Slip Op 52007(U)(App. Ter 2d Dept. 2013) “Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant was not required to
Jesa Med. Supply, Inc. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2013 NY Slip Op 52007(U)(App. Ter 2d Dept. 2013) “Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant was not required to
Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, 2013 NY Slip Op 07283 (4th Dept. 2013) (1) CPLR 4518 (a) challenge: “We conclude that plaintiff met its initial burden
Colonia Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51266(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013) “Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion, arguing that the
All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 23262 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013) “At the outset, we note that plaintiff
AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50510(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2013) “The court finds that Dr. Rozenberg’s testimony was insufficient
JP Morgan Chase Bank v Shapiro, 2013 NY Slip Op 01357 (1st Dept. 2013) “The underlying mortgage and note were originally held by Washington Mutual Bank, FA
Hazzard v Burrowes, 2012 NY Slip Op 03409 (2d Dept. 2012) “Moreover, the police accident report was inadmissible, as it was not certified as a business
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50398(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012) “In the case at bar, plaintiff’s submission of a
Hernandez v Tepan, 2012 NY Slip Op 01211 (2d Dept. 2012) “As the defendant correctly contends, the police accident report submitted by the plaintiff in support
When will certain Plaintiffs and their law firms realize that it is okay to occasionally lose in Civil Court. Look at the the mess that Plaintiff
Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 77673(U) (Motion No: 2011-04221)(2d Dept. 2011) Lower decision citation: Viviane Etienne Medical Care,
NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 04436 (2d Dept. 2011) “Esurance issued a denial of claim, which incorrectly stated the
Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 01258 (2d Dept. 2011) “We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court erred in
Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 21039 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2011) When Carothers was decided, people on here
Yellow Book of N.Y., L.P. v Cataldo, 2011 NY Slip Op 00678 (2d Dept. 2011): Affiant could work for successor entity and lay a proper business
Short and sweet from the Appellate Division. J.D.M. Imports Co., Inc. v Hartstein, 2010 NY Slip Op 09186 (1st Dept. 2010) “The court correctly found that
Carothers v GEICO Indem. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51718(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010). We just saw this from the Fourth Department this week. Compare –
Velocity Invs., LLC v Cocina, 2010 NY Slip Op 06854 (4th Dept. 2010) “We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion inasmuch
People v Batjer, 2010 NY Slip Op 06825 (4th Dept. 2010) “We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in admitting in evidence certain records
Total Family Chiropractic v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51470(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) This was another one that did not necessarily go my
