Martinez v. Royal-Pak Systems

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Royal-Pak Systems

300 A.D.2d 198, 751 N.Y.S.2d 738

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 198 (Martinez v. Royal-Pak Systems) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 198, 751 N.Y.S.2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-royal-pak-systems-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack