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
THE DATE BY WHICH AN OPTION TO RENEW A LEASE IS TO BE EXERCISED CAN BE WAIVED BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNTIMELY ELECTION TO RENEW; THE REQUEST FOR A NEW LEASE WITH THE SAME MATERIAL TERMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION TO RENEW (THIRD DEPT).
THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).
NOTING THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE 2ND AND 4TH DEPARTMENTS, THE 3RD DEPARTMENT SIDED WITH THE 2ND AND HELD THAT, WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DECEASED, JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEDENT IS REQUIRED FOR AN IN REM TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (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
RESPONDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE PORTION OF THE ARBITRATION WHICH DEALT WITH THE USE OF ESCROW FUNDS TO REPAIR CONDOMINIUM SWIMMING POOLS WAIVED ANY CHALLENGE TO THE ARBITRABILITY OF THE ISSUE (THIRD DEPT).
JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PARTIES’ AGREEMENT ON ALL BUT ONE ISSUE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED A CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE STATE ASSUMES A DUTY OF PROTECTION AGAINST HARM FOR A CHILD IN ITS CUSTODY; THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE STATE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY, OVER AND ABOVE THAT OWED THE GENERAL PUBLIC (THIRD DEPT).
Initial Detention at Gun-Point Was Not an Illegal Arrest

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
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...