Martinez v. Royal-Pak Systems

300 A.D.2d 198, 751 N.Y.S.2d 738
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 24, 2002·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered August 15, 2002, which, upon the parties’ respective motions to reargue a prior order setting aside the jury’s award of past lost earnings and directing a new trial thereon, dismissed the claim for past lost earnings as a matter of law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs testimony as to his past earnings, unsubstantiated by tax returns, W-2 forms or other relevant documents, was insufficient, as a matter of law, to show any loss of past earnings (see DelValle v White Castle Sys., 277 AD2d 13; Razzaque v Krakow Taxi, 238 AD2d 161, 162; Gomez v City of New York, 260 AD2d 598). We have considered and rejected plaintiff’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Martinez v. Royal-Pak Systems, 300 A.D.2d 198, 751 N.Y.S.2d 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

300 A.D.2d 198 (Martinez v. Royal-Pak Systems) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Orellano v. 29 East 37th Street Realty Corp.
4 A.D.3d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sdregas v. City of New York
309 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Kye Yong Kim v. 40th Associates
306 A.D.2d 220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
St. Hilaire v. White
305 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)