<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>No Fault Defender - A Defense Attorney&#039;s Perspective on New York No-Fault Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nofault.lisquared.com/index.php?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com</link>
	<description>By: Jason Tenenbaum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 18:27:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>May 2309(c) finally rest in peace.</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3150</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3150#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 16:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2106 and 2309]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedural Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fredette v Town of Southampton, 2012 NY Slip Op 03595 (2d Dept. 2012)
&#8220;it improvidently exercised its discretion in excluding from  consideration the affidavits of Ken Glaser and Kris Kubly on the ground  that the affidavits, while notarized, were not accompanied by a  certificate of conformity required by CPLR 2309(c). This Court has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3150</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mailing not proven through witness that was not present when items was deposited into the trusty USPS</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3148</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3148#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mailing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exclusive Physical Therapy, P.C. v MVAIC,  2012 NY Slip Op 50862(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
&#8220;We note that, in his affidavit, defendant&#8217;s claims representative stated that he  had begun working for defendant after the denial of claim forms at  issue had allegedly been mailed by defendant. Consequently, defendant  failed to show that its [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3148</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The failure to respond to an EUO letter non-suits another DME provider</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3144</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3144#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:42:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EUO issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sufficiency of letters and requests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Leica Supply, Inc. v Encompass Indem. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50890(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2012)
Plaintiff&#8217;s argument that its assignor&#8217;s failure to appear for the duly  scheduled EUOs permitted only the denial of pending claims is without  merit (see ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A],  2011 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3144</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IME no-show defense defeated based upon affidavit issue &#8211; prima facie denied based upon a denial which Defendant did not prove was mailed</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3140</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3140#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IME issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prima Facie case]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,  2012 NY Slip Op 50880(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012).
An affidavit executed by defendant&#8217;s litigation examiner demonstrated  that denial of claim forms, which denied the claims at issue in the  first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action based upon the failure [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3140</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acupuncture fee schedule defense upheld</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3136</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3136#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mr. Five Boro Award]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Raz Acupuncture, P.C. v New S. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50865(U)
&#8220;The affidavits submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for  summary judgment established that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent&#8217;s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3136</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The failure to specifically deny the lack of appearence at an EUO proves fatal</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3134</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3134#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 23:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EUO issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal knowledge of no-show]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Continental Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50844(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2012)
&#8220;The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits  by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for  independent medical examinations [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3134</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Subsequent MSJ is okay</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3128</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3128#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 23:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedural Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Judgment Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Valley Natl. Bank v INI Holding, LLC,  2012 NY Slip Op 03830 (2d Dept. 2012)
&#8220;Although multiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be  discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or  other sufficient cause, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be  properly entertained when it is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3128</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Perl?  Where are you?  Not over here&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3125</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3125#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 01:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[5102(d) issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Il Chung Lim v Chrabaszcz, 2012 NY Slip Op 03600 (2d Dept. 2012)
1) 13% loss of ROM not deemed a serious injury
2) The old standard of needing to address the radiologist report is necessary notwithstanding Perl
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The approximate 13% limitation in range of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3125</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Non-compulsory arbitration award vacated</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3122</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3122#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 01:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitrations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 75]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Siegel v Landy, 2012 NY Slip Op 03625 (2d Dept. 2012)
There is a right to be able to present evidence at an arbitration&#8230;
&#8220;However, as the plaintiff correctly contends, the arbitration award, as modified, *3 should have been vacated on the ground that the arbitrator failed to follow the procedures set forth in CPLR article 75 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3122</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mailing case &#8211; sent but never received</title>
		<link>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3119</link>
		<comments>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3119#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 02:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mailing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nofault.lisquared.com/?p=3119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matter of Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Morris, 2012 NY Slip Op 03448 (2d Dept. 2012).
I would seriously take notice of this case.  This is probably the standard to prove non-receipt, both in a traverse setting and in the usual mailing battles that no-fault fosters.
&#8220;As a general rule of evidence, proof that an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nofault.lisquared.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=3119</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

