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 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN OPEN REPUDIATION OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS; HERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUCH AN OPEN REPUDIATION; THE STATUTE NEVER BEGAN TO RUN AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT).
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).
Court Should Have Instructed Jury on Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault in this Legal Malpractice Action
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).
PAROLEES DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; HERE THE SEARCH BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS BASED UPON A TIP FROM DEFENDANT’S MOTHER; THE SEARCH WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ DUTIES; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE 14-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT DRIVER ACKNOWLEDGED HIS NEGLIGENCE ON THE STAND (THIRD DEPT).
NEITHER THE “HABIT” NOR THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

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...