Once a month, the Fourth Department usually barrages us with about 100 or so decisions. The hard part is sifting through them quickly enough and finding
Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Indem. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20059 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) First, the Appellate Term, Second Department, appears to
Rodriguez v United Bronx Parents, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 01366 (1st Dept. 2010): “Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered August 26,
Ikeda v Tedesco, 2010 NY Slip Op 01283 (4th Dept. 2010) “We reject plaintiff’s contention that, pursuant to CPLR 3402, a party may file a note
I am going to copy and paste what I think is the pertinent portion of the decision in Thompson v Mather, 2010 NY Slip Op 01239
We see here an interesting case where a defendant is forced to undergo a somewhat invasive test. The Court was steadfast in its holding in Welter
Mia Acupuncture, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 29509 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2009) In this case and the other joined cases, the
The Appellate Division examined the provision of the CPLR deposition venue statute as it applies to parties who would be significantly inconvenienced in coming to a
Stoian v. Reed, 2009 NY Slip Op 07713 (3d Dept. 2009) “We also reject plaintiffs’ assertion that Supreme Court abused its discretion in failing to grant
Northfield Ins. Co. v Model Towing & Recovery 2009 NY Slip Op 04878 (2d Dept 2009). While this case represents nothing unique, the path the Appellate
Queens Chiropractic Mgt., P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51073(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009). In yet another defeat to the Plaintiff’s bar
Queens Chiropractic Mgt., P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 51073(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009). In yet another defeat to the Plaintiff’s bar
