Matter of State of New York v Jesus H., 2019 NY Slip Op 07858 (1st Dept. 2019) (1) ” With regard to the appropriate scope of
Cicco v Durolek, 2019 NY Slip Op 03170 (4th Dept. 2019) (1) ” We reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting photographs from plaintiff’s
Hernandez v Ortiz, 2018 NY Slip Op 07075 (1st Dept. 2018) In much of the hyper-technical world of no-fault, the question becomes the quality of the evidence
People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 00710 (4th Dept. 2018) “First, the court “erred in admitting in evidence a printout of electronic data that was displayed
Harris v Campbell, 2017 NY Slip Op 08112 (4th Dept. 2017) (1) CPLR 3101(d) “Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court properly limited the testimony of one of
Gonzalez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05180 (1st Dept. 2017) (1) “To begin, the trial court erred in precluding pictures of the accident
People v Jackson (Miriam), 2017 NY Slip Op 50133(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017) “A trial court “has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant
CitiMortgage, Inc. v McKinney, 2016 NY Slip Op 08037 (2d Dept. 2016) “Stringer further asserted that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures,
Rivera v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06854 (2016) Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and contrarily construed provisions of the CPLR is expert witness
Lesaldo v Dabas, 2016 NY Slip Op 04181 (2d Dept. 2016) “The plaintiff’s affidavit and the police accident report, which contained the defendant’s admission to the effect
IMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Hertz Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50258(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016) This res judicata decision is interesting because it tests the outer of
Cruz v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07910 (1st Dept, 2015) This one is interesting. The usual notion is that the failure to identify
