Popular Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52355(U) (Civ. Cit. Richmond County, 2009)

Popular Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52355(U) (Civ. Cit. Richmond County, 2009)

2nd verification issued on 30th day
4th Dept
22 NYCRR 202.21[d]
3211(a)(1)
App. Div. 2nd
Assignment
Class Action
CLE
Coverage
CPLR
CPLR R. 2106
Declaratory Judgment
Denial Typo
Discovery
DJ action
EUO
Fee Schedule
Fraud
Frye
Jurisdiction
Late Notice of Claim
Mallela
Material Misrepresentation
Motivation
NICB
NYLJ
Peer Review
Policy
Prima Facie
SCOTUS
Service through Ins Dept
Severance
Signature
SIU
Summary Judgment
TED
Trial de-novo
Wrap up 2nd verification issued on 30th day (1)
45 day rule (3)
a (1)
App Term 2nd (3)
App. Div. 2nd (1)
Appellate Division (8)
Appellate Procedure (2)
Arbitration (2)
Attorney fees (2)
Bad Faith (7)
Books (2)
Class Action (3)
CLE (2)
Collateral Estopptel (2)
Complaints (1)
Contract Reformation (1)
Coverage (3)
CPLR Amendments (1)
Dan Med (6)
Declaratory Judgment (5)
Default Judgments (7)
Denials (5)
Depositions (2)
Discovery (4)
DWI (2)
EUO (4)
Evidence (1)
Experts (1)
Fee Schedule (4)
Fraud (4)
Geico (3)
Generally Accepted Medical Pracitce (2)
Grammar (2)
hearsay no fault insured (1)
Hippa (1)
IME no show (2)
Insurance Law Amendments (1)
Interest (2)
Jobs (1)
Law Journal (2)
Legal writing (3)
Letter To The Editor (1)
LMK (1)
LMT (1)
Mailing (3)
Material Misrepresentation (1)
medical collections (1)
Medical Necessity (10)
Medical Records (1)
New Blog (1)
New York Law Journal (1)
no fault collections (1)
no fault law (182)
no-fault attorneys (1)
Notice to Admit (1)
Opinion Letter (1)
Peer Reviews (3)
Personal Jurisdiction (1)
Policy Issues (3)
Prima Facie (3)
progressive (4)
Recap (1)
settlements (2)
Summary Judgment (3)
Typos (1)
Uncategorized (510)
Verification (7)
Video (1)
Workers Comp (1)
Wrap up (4)
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Copyright © 2012 New York No Fault Paradise
Apparantly the Rules of Evidence refuse to cross the Verrazzano. I have decisions out of Hempstead that directly contradict this nonsense if anybody wants them.
Hempstead is a haven for those who love the strict application of the rules of evidence. Ever since Richardson moved there the place rocks.
The drawback is it appears that Hempstead is the only place that applies the rules of evidence.
And about Federal Court — oh my. You’d think there would be a level of decorum and deportment that many would fail to live up to — an overall high level of professionalism. At least for the insurance companies there are no rules of evidence, formal requirements for RICO Pleadings and/or fraud pleadings.
All people do is write letters to the judge attacking opposing counsel using opposing counsel’s name.
You have to ask permission by letter to do anything. “Your honor may I have a conference so that I can show up at the conference and beg to be allowed to make a motion to dismiss.” Then the insurance company lawyer writes his own letter insulting you by name: “Mr. Smith is a heinous man who is merely trying to protect his guilty client by representing him. This type of devious behavior on Mr. Smith’s part should not be allowed. I want sanctions.”
It is so efficient.