Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply
In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected by the Nation’s sovereign immunity. Contrary to the contention of defendants-appellants, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied that part of their motion seeking to dismiss the first amended complaint against LGCC on sovereign immunity grounds inasmuch as LGCC is not an “arm of the tribe” for purposes of sovereign immunity.”
Fourth Department Upholds Denial Of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion For Rear-End Crash
In Lyins v. Zieman, May 2013, the Fourth Department upheld the lower Court’s ruling denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding a rear-end crash. The defendant claimed that he should be let out of the case as he proved that his brakes failed. The Court held that the defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the accident was the result of unanticipated brake failure. The Court held.
Fourth Department Holds No Video Allowed For “NPE”
In Flores v. Vescera, (4th Dept. April 2013) the plaintiff appealed from a protective order that denied her demand to videotape a neuropsychological evaluation (NPE). The Curt held that there is no express statutory authority to videotape medical examinations and that videotaping has not been allowed in the absence of “special and unusual circumstances.” The Court cited CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17.
Fourth Department Upholds Labor Law Slip And Fall Summary Judgment For Plaintiff
In Thompson v. 1241 PVR, LLC , a labor law case Plaintiff fell on ice and snow that had accumulated on the floor of the building where he was framing interior walls before a proper roof or windows were installed. Defendants contended on appeal that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability, alleging the violation of Labor Law § 241 (6). The Fourth Department affirmed.
Sun Glare Does Not Always Provide Basis For Emergency Doctrine
As a Buffalo and Western New York personal injury attorney I have to stay on top of the most recent case law. Oftentimes a defendant in a motor vehicle crash will claim that they are not responsible because they are blinded by the sun. The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Lifson v. City of Syracuse. In Lifson, the Court of Appeals held that emergency doctrine is not warranted where conditions should be properly anticipated.
Fees For Departing Attorney Must Be Fair
As a Buffalo and Western New York attorney that deals with ethical issues, I am often asked how a firm divides fees when an attorney leaves the firm and continues to represent former firm clients. In Russo v. City of New York 48 A.D.3d 520 (2nd Dept. 2008) the Court held that, “Where there is a fee dispute between attorneys, the amount due an outgoing attorney is based on the proportionate share of the work performed.”
Employment Agreements And The Rules Of Professional Conduct
As the attorney that successfully handled Becker v. Cellino & Barnes, P.C. regarding ethical considerations in employment agreements, I have come across many cases in my research in which the agreements involved do not to comply with the ethical code for attorneys.
Law Regarding Proper No-Fault Submissions And Denials For Peer Reviews
An applicant establishes a prima facie showing of its entitlement to No-Fault benefits as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms had been mailed and received and that payment of No-Fault benefits were overdue. Sunshine Imaging Association/WNY MRI v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 66 A.D.3d 1419, 885 N.Y.S.2d 557(4th Dept. 2009).
Admissibility Of Certain Doctor Testimony Still Uncertain In New York
As an injury attorney in Buffalo and Western New York that has been to many trials, the admissibility of the testimony plaintiff’s treating doctors often is an issue.
No Need For Provider To Continue Sending Bills After No-Fault Denial
In New York Hosp. v. Country-Wide, it was held that after the carrier denies a no-fault claim because the carrier’s doctor claims that no further care is needed, a provider need not continue sending in bills to later establish a claim for payment. In other words, the carrier cannot later deny payment for failure to submit medical proofs of claim after the denial.