Devonshire Surgical Facility, L.L.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52297(U)(2d Dept. 2010) “Therefore, resolution of the factual question presented on this record “is
B.Y., M.D., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51902(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) “[d]efendant’s cross motion [is] remitted to the District Court
AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50708(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) “…reversed without costs, the provision denying without prejudice
The issue of what must be demonstrated in order to divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction when there is a workers compensation issue present has
The issue of what must be demonstrated in order to divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction when there is a workers compensation issue present has
In New York First Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52217(u), the Appellate Term in the context of an
In New York First Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52217(u), the Appellate Term in the context of an
One of the most intriguing things about this area of law is that in a matter of 6 months, the same court can make pronouncements that
I would be remiss if I did not thank Dave Barshay for the citation to this blog in his article. I also must thank David Gottlieb
In reading the Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 02589 (2d Dept. 2009) case that involved the validity of a
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 02589 (2d Dept. 2009) http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_02589.htm This case has a few issues. The first issue
