You are here: / / THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT...

THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s evidence of lost earnings was insufficient to support his claim for no-fault benefits. The insurer’s motion for summary judgment should, therefore, have been granted. The dissenters argued that there was enough evidence of lost earnings to raise a question of fact:

… {The potential employer’s and] plaintiff’s subjective beliefs about the financial health of the parts business and/or their subjective beliefs about plaintiff’s skills are immaterial to the resolution of whether it is reasonable to project that the parts business would have employed plaintiff at a salary of $2,000 a week. In contrast, the uncontradicted evidence that the parts business was failing, that it had not made any efforts to acquire or open an automobile repair shop, and that, even if it had, plaintiff had a demonstrated history of being unable to run a profitable automobile repair shop all bear on the reasonableness of such a projection. That material evidence established as a matter of law that the projection that plaintiff would have received $2,000 a week from the parts business is unreasonable … . Freligh v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05911, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, LOST EARNINGS, THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/NO-FAULT BENEFITS (LOST EARNINGS,  THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
“Expert” Affidavit Did Not Address the Affiant’s Qualifications for Rendering an Opinion Re: the Safety of a Curb and Sidewalk—Affidavit Should Not Have Been Relied Upon by the Motion Court
Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction
ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).
Reasons for Refusal of Temporary Job Not Sufficient; Claimant Disqualified
THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant
THERE WAS NO INDICATION ON THE FORM AND NO REGULATION REQUIRING CLAIMANT TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE RB-89 FORM FOR EACH CLAIM; THE BOARD THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO REVIEW THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S (WCLJ’S) DECISION ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
THE FIDUCIARY TOLLING RULE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ACTION AGAINST AN EXECUTOR (WHO WAS REMOVED BY THE COURT) UNTIL THE SUCESSOR FIDUCIARY WAS APPOINTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEP... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S...