No Fault Defender – A Defense Attorney's Perspective on New York No-Fault Law
By: Jason Tenenbaum
No Santa, there is a justiciable controversy. Oh yes, you do not need discovery to oppose my motion. SMH
January 28th, 2013 | Author: JT
If you read the opposition papers, you will note that the points the Judge relegated as an afterthought take up the first 30 paragraphs of Defendant’s opposition papers. It is nice litigating these issues in courts where the papers are read on submission.
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a Reply
Categories
Contact Jason Tenenbaum
(516)750-0595 (T)
(516)414-2869 (F)
Jason@jtnylaw.com
Our No-Fault Practice
I believe that what makes our law firm stand out from other defense firms is the precision of our motion and appellate work, as well as our overall case handling. My track record at the appellate courts and motion courts may be found in the "About JT" tool bar. If you want a properly drafted appellate brief or a properly handled case from inception to conclusion at a reasonable price, send me an email or give me a telephone call.
My Law Firm
Recent Comments
- Kurt Lundgren on An IME that went wrong
- nycoolbreez on Unrebutted doctor’s testimony insufficient to prove the services lacked a medical necessity
- kurt lundgren on Unrebutted doctor’s testimony insufficient to prove the services lacked a medical necessity
- AB on Discovery not necessary to adjudicate merits of EUO no-show defense
- kurt lundgren on Would this violate the Civil Kings briefing schedule rule?
- JT on Would this violate the Civil Kings briefing schedule rule?
- Rookie on Would this violate the Civil Kings briefing schedule rule?
- Rookie on An IME no show case
- Rookie on Discovery not necessary to adjudicate merits of EUO no-show defense
- Rookie on EUO statements of law
Categories
- 5102(d) issues (34)
- Additional Verification (40)
- Arbitrations (18)
- Article 75 (11)
- Attorney fee (3)
- Bad Faith (3)
- Calendar Control (1)
- Choice of law (6)
- Consumer Fraud (1)
- Coverage (79)
- Cancellation of policy (2)
- Causation (17)
- Declaratory Judgments (4)
- Intentional loss (9)
- Material misrepresentation – procurement of insurance policy (8)
- No loss (5)
- No Policy of Insurance (2)
- Non eligible injured person (5)
- Policy Exhaustion (5)
- Resident Relative (4)
- Staged loss (3)
- Use and Operation (7)
- Damages (4)
- interest (4)
- Deductible issues (3)
- Defamation (1)
- Defaults (31)
- 3215(f) issues (5)
- Adjournments (3)
- Claims office failure (4)
- Law Office Failure (8)
- Discontinuances (1)
- Discovery (47)
- Bill of Particulars issues (1)
- Discovery sanctions (11)
- EBT issues (20)
- HIPPA issues (2)
- Notice of Trial issues (3)
- Spoliation (1)
- DWI issues (6)
- EUO issues (56)
- Evidence (107)
- 4404(a) & weight of evidence review (3)
- Business records (33)
- collateral estoppel (4)
- Expert journals and treatises (4)
- Experts (43)
- Hearsay (33)
- Fee Schedule (55)
- Florida issues (3)
- Fraud (7)
- General non-cooperation (1)
- IME issues (63)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jury Issues (1)
- Mailing (27)
- Mallela issues (23)
- Medical Necessity (122)
- Mr. Five Boro Award (9)
- Non receipt of bill (5)
- Paid (2)
- Pleadings (3)
- Amendments (3)
- Preservation of defenses on NF-10 (17)
- Prima Facie case (58)
- Priority of Payment (2)
- Procedural Issues (142)
- 2106 and 2309 (20)
- 3404 (2)
- Affidavits (12)
- Consolidation (2)
- Counterclaims (1)
- Declaratory Judgment Action (5)
- Deposition transcripts (1)
- Directed Verdicts (2)
- Hypo-technical defects (13)
- Judgments (4)
- Pleading defects (6)
- Renew and reargue (12)
- Replies (3)
- Res Judicata (7)
- Stipulations (3)
- Striking Notices of Trial (4)
- Subpoenas (1)
- Summary Judgment Issues (25)
- Severence (3)
- Standing (21)
- Statute of Limitations (8)
- Statutory interest (7)
- Timely notice of claim (11)
- Timely submissions of Bills (13)
- Uncategorized (129)
- Venue (2)
- Workers Compensation (15)
- Zuppa (4)