Here is a procedural one for you
February 12, 2020 No Comments
Dookhie v Woo, 2020 NY Slip Op 00975 (1st Dept. 2020) “A party’s submission of new evidence or argument in reply on the underlying motion constitutes
Dookhie v Woo, 2020 NY Slip Op 00975 (1st Dept. 2020) “A party’s submission of new evidence or argument in reply on the underlying motion constitutes
Budoff v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05817 (2d Dept. 2018) “As the Supreme Court reviewed the merits of the plaintiff’s contentions raised in
Provek Plus, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50870(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015) “While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on
One to One v. State Farm, Index #: 79955/10 (Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2013)(Gonzalez, JSC) In the normal and ordinary course of business in no-fault Special Term,
DeMarquez v Gallo, 2012 NY Slip Op 03130 (2d Dept. 2012) How many times have you seen this? “[p]laintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the
Schwelnus v Urological Assoc. of L.I., P.C., 2012 NY Slip Op 02858 (2d Dept. 2012) The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’
Abrams v Berelson, 2012 NY Slip Op 02618 (2d Dept. 2012) Plaintiff attempted to renew a lost motion for summary judgment in a premises liability case,
Ashraf Ashour Physical Therapy, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50491(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2012) Defendant appeals from an order of
Tangalin v MTA Long Is. Bus, 2012 NY Slip Op 01239 (2d Dept. 2012) “We agree with the appellants’ contention that the Supreme Court erroneously treated
Ferrara v De Ming Song, 2010 NY Slip Op 51472(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) “[t]he affirmed reports of plaintiff’s medical provider in Florida, submitted in opposition
It is rare to see a 5102(d) case, which has broad implications in various areas of law, find a probable trip to the Court of Appeals.
Here is an interesting case that came from the Appellate Division, Second Department today. It comes to us as a nasty legal malpractice, matrimonial and fraud
Since proof of standing is generally not an affirmative part of a no-fault claimant’s prima facie case, this case from the First Department might be of
What happens if you draft an affirmation that is missing the magical “2106” language and the defect is properly objected to? You lose. Can you move
From a procedural standpoint, a question that has arisen is whether a motion seeking leave to reargue or, in certain cases, leave to renew is timely
