The Appellate Division has held that "Documentary evidence" under CPLR 3211(a)(1) is quite limited
Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 2010 NY Slip Op 02743 (2d Dept. 2010) “[t]he case law is somewhat more abundant as to what is not “documentary
Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 2010 NY Slip Op 02743 (2d Dept. 2010) “[t]he case law is somewhat more abundant as to what is not “documentary
Bandler v Liberty Chevrolet, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 50475(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010) Many people, I guess because of the volume of interlocutory appeals that
It looks as if an objector to a stamped signature or a computer generated signature needs to present some evidence that the signature is not holographic
It looks as if an objector to a stamped signature or a computer generated signature needs to present some evidence that the signature is not holographic
Yes, you read that title correctly. Three bizarre decisions as of late, one which deals tangentially with no fault (Garcia v Leon, 2010 NY Slip Op
B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Government Empl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20026 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) This case is weird. Why would a provider
In a tribute to the CPLR blog, and DG’s CPLR R. 3212(f) quest, vendetta or obsession (you pick the appropriate one), here is another case where