When the trial court in a bench trial does not assess credibility
November 3, 2019 No Comments
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
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
I guess when you write many briefs, you forgot to change your template to accord your legal arguments to the actual facts. Ultimate Health Prods., Inc.
SAL Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51449(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015) “The defect in one of the peer review reports submitted
Innovative MR Imaging, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51402(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015) “In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted two letters of
Quiroz v Zottola, 2015 NY Slip Op 04627 (2d Dept. 2015) “Moreover, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of Zottola.
Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 01750 (1st Dept. 2015)(1st Dept 2015) “We find that the no-fault arbitrator’s decision to adhere,
People v. Haywood, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00555 (2d Dept. 2015) “The trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining one of the complaining witnesses regarding
Flanger v 2461 Elm Realty Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 08532 (3d Dept. 2014) “Defendant also submitted the affidavit of an alleged expert engineer who opined that
Knight v M & M Sanitation Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 07631 (2d Dept. 2014) This serious injury trial was problem for Plaintiff on may accounts. But
