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
Seaberg v North Shore Lincoln- Mercury, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05688 (2d Dept, 2011). An interesting evidentiary discussion, in a civil matter, with plenty of
Matter of State of New York v Mark S., 2011 NY Slip Op 04792 (3d Dept. 2011) An astute commentator could probably write an article correlating
Consolidated Imaging P.C. (Rafailova) v Travelers Indem. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50159(U)(Civ Ct. Richmond Co. 2011) I did not miss this case. I just avoid
Matter of State of New York v Motzer, 2010 NY Slip Op 09688 (4th Dept. 2010) “Respondent contends that the court erred in allowing petitioner’s expert
Elmont Open Mri & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52222(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) I guess
Smolinski v Smolinski, 2010 NY Slip Op 08468 (4th Dept. 2010) I admit that I failed to pick up this case on my own. A nice
Matter of State of New York v Wilkes, 2010 NY Slip Op 07006 (4th Dept. 2010) “Insofar as respondent preserved for our review his further contention
Matter of State of New York v Wilkes, 2010 NY Slip Op 07006 (4th Dept. 2010) “Insofar as respondent preserved for our review his further contention
Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50987(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) This case really should be in the misc.3d reporter
Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50800(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2010) This is the topic that just will not go
“Furthermore, the computerized range-of-motion tests referred to in Dr. Dudelzak’s affirmations were not in admissible form because they were not affirmed by someone with personal knowledge
