Here are a few cases of note from the Second Department that you may find useful:

Lawton v. Palmer, decided on March 25, 2015, the 2nd Dept reversed trial court for not permitting defendants from impeaching a non-testifying witness (MD) by way of introducing Department of Health records which showed that the MD plead guilty to insurance fraud and was guilty of misconduct before the Department of Health.  Plaintiff used a separate doctor as a witness who used the records of the MD who had plead guilty to misconduct.  Trial court did not permit defendants to introduce the DOH records into evidence to impeach the credibility of the non-testifying MD.  2nd Department reversed stating that “the impeachment evidence was especially probative since the (testifying medical expert) relied, in part,  on reports of the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon (ie., the MD who plead guilty to misconduct before the DOH).

Lilaj v. Ferentinos, decided on March 25, 2015, the 2nd Dept affirmed plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Defendant driver passed a STOP sign and testified that he made a full stop, looked both ways, and proceeded into intersection and was then struck by plaintiff’s vehicle. 2nd Dept found that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact since defendant failed to yield.  Defendant’s testimony that the plaintiff was speeding was “speculative” since defendant stated that he did not see plaintiff prior to impact.

Lastly, in Collado v Jiacono, decided on March 25, 2015,  defendants claimed that they were not involved in an accident because they had “no record of the vehicle was involved in an accident” and that the vehicle had “dealership plates.  The defendant driver struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear and the parties did not call the police to the scene.  However, the driver furnished information to the plaintiff (e.g., telephone number of the dealer, address of the dealer).  Defendant dealer denied accident took place, however 2nd Dept found that plaintiff raised triable issues regarding ownership (telephone number, etc.) that precluded Summary Judgment.

Do you have any recent cases of note that you would like to share? Please feel free to contact me for publication