| MUST READS (2 summaries) | |||
| NOTEWORTHY | IF YOU MUST READ | ||
 Based on jurisdictional discovery ordered after it was found that plaintiff made a good start at showing long arm jurisdiction, reported in NYTW Vol. #: 91, the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction for 2 proton therapy groups in New Jersey was reinstated and 2-physicians found not to have personally projected themselves into New York, where their videos promoting center were after plaintiff’s treatment and their treatment was wholly within NJ, granted dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction. Robins v Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc. |
| Defendants entitled to post Note of Issue discovery including authorizations and further deposition where plaintiff raised significant lumbar injuries for first time after Note of Issue and defendants were entitled to authorizations unrestricted by date based on claim of aggravation of pre-existing, latent, asymptomatic degenerative condition. Rom v Eurostruct, Inc. |
| NOTEWORTHY (4 summaries) | |||
| MUST READS | IF YOU MUST READ | ||
| Plaintiff’s motion to renew opposition to defendants’ motion to produce records from NJ case also involving psychiatric treatment denied where no new facts were offered and plaintiff failed to give reasonable excuse for not including facts on original motion. Claim that administrator was unaware of decedent’s confidentiality agreement in NJ action was not a reasonable excuse and the psychiatric records were relevant to similar claims of psychiatric malpractice leading to decedent’s suicide in the present case and financial records relevant on damages. Arena v Shaw |
| Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on settlement granted where release clearly listed defendant as insured being released, check cashed by plaintiff had the same claim number, and letter sent by plaintiff’s counsel days after release was signed trying to resend the settlement referred to defendant as the insured. Sandomirsky v Velasquez |
| Defendant’s request for plaintiff’s entire employment file for 3-years before accident denied as overbroad and not materially necessary to claim of traumatic brain injury where employer told plaintiff she was not improperly performing work duties after accident but 2-knee replacements prior to the accident were relevant where plaintiff claimed impaired stability and balance. Wilson v Simpson W. Realty, LLC |
| Plaintiff’s motion to strike Answer for failing to timely comply with discovery granted to the extent of directing defendant to appear for deposition on a date certain or be precluded from testifying or providing an affidavit for any purpose where defendant’s delays were not willful/contumacious and plaintiff was not prejudiced by delays. Aquino v Taylor Comment: When writing or requesting conditional orders of preclusion the language should always include “precluded from offering an affidavit for any purpose” in addition to precluding testimony. |
| IF YOU MUST READ (0 summaries) | |||
| MUST READS | NOTEWORTHY | ||
