Legal Opinion

Weeden v. First National Bank of Long Island

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided September 30, 2002PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*804The plaintiffs “Verified Statement as to Collateral Sources” (hereinafter the Statement) specifically stated that the plaintiff “does not seek to recover any of the cost of medical care.” The plaintiff argues that the Statement makes no reference whatsoever to the cost of future medical care, which “by virtue of the Amended Verified Bill of Particulars * * * was an item of damages plaintiff would still pursue.” However, in the Statement, the plaintiff specifically reserved his right to pursue claims for loss of past and future earnings, and failed to similarly reserve his right to his claim…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Julien v. Physician's HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  2. Lyall v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  3. Semel v. KleinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  4. Torres v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  5. Almada v. Long Island Lighting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Laurin Maritime AB v. Imperial Chemical Industries PLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. Davis v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API