Carcrash led to two fusions of spine, plaintiff claimed. Verdict was in the amount of $1,025,000. On January 11th 2007, plaintiff Christopher Cicola, 35, an accountant, was driving on a Route 112, in Medford. While he was stopped at a red traffic signal, his vehicle's rear end was struck by a trailing vehicle that was being driven by Glenn Muller. Cicola claimed that he sustained injuries of his neck and a shoulder. Cicola sued Muller and the owner of Muller's Vehicle, Suffolk County. Cicola alleged that Muller was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Cicola further alleged that Suffolk County was vicariouly liable for Muller's actions. Cicola's counsel moved for summary jedgment of liability, and the motion was granted. The trial addressed damages of annular tear, decreased range of motion, diskectomy, fusion, vervical, fusion, lumbar, Hardware implanted, herniated disc at C4-5; herniated disc.
On March 8, 2012, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a new regulation that will enable New York State to investigate and ban medical providers who engage in fraudulent and deceptive practices from participation in no-fault. The preamble to the new regulation makes it clear that the DFS investigation will focus on the “ownership, control, and daily operation of professional service corporations…by individuals who are not licensed to practice medicine.” See the full post on the the new regulation issued by the DFS >>
"In a recent case in which our law firm represented a homeowner, the lender sought summary judgment against our client in order to move forward and sell her home at a foreclosure sale. Our client, facing a default in answering her lawsuit in court months prior to contacting our firm, thought that she was protected but later learned the serious consequences of failing to properly defend herself in court. In opposition to the motion, the client found a solution through the judiciary and the courts of our state. “The court may excuse defendant’s default and extend time to file an answer upon a demonstration of a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense… Defendant (homeowner) has established a reasonable excuse…because she relied on her (prior) attorney, who had filed an appearance in the action on her behalf to handle the foreclosure action… Defendant (homeowner) has also established the existence of a potentially meritorious defense… Plaintiff (lender) must be the holder or assignee of the mortgage and underlying note at the time the action is commenced… Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence that the underlying note was assigned or physically delivered before the action was commenced. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference is denied and defendant’s cross-motion for an extension of time to file an answer is granted.”
"A Homeowner may seek dismissal of a claim if the plaintiff cannot show it has legal capacity to sue. In an action for foreclosure, Plaintiff must show that it is the owner of the note as well as the mortgage at the time the action is commenced. Absent an effective transfer of the debt as well as the note, the assignment of the mortgage is void and Plaintiff cannot foreclose on the property for nonpayment of the note. MERS must hold title to the underlying note and without that, it could not transfer any rights to the underlying note when it assigned the mortgage."
"In an action instituted by a Trust, as a collateral agent and custodian, as a plaintiff in an action to foreclose a home mortgage, the court denied the plaintiff's request for an order of reference and related relief without proof that the Trust has a valid power of attorney for that express purpose, along with an original or a certified copy of the Servicing Agreement, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of the plaintiff, together with an affidavit of merit by a person with personal knowledge of the facts."
"At least 90 days before legal action is commenced, the lender must give statutorily prescribed notice to the borrower in at least 14 point type, by registered or certified mail and also by first class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and if different, to the residence which is the subject of the mortgage. Absent proper evidentiary proof of compliance with such pre-commencement requirements, the action is dismissed."
"Absent the essential elements of proper signatures on a note, a valid mortgage cannot exist because it is the underlying obligation which gives rise to the validity of the mortgage as a lien upon the real property and mandates the denial of plaintiff's application for summary judgment."
"The court will require proof of the grant of authority from the original lender to the instant plaintiff to permit a mortgage foreclosure action to proceed along with an affidavit by persons with personal knowledge of the facts, as opposed to those by a "robosigner". To allow an action to continue, without such proof, makes a mockery of and wastes the resources of the judicial system. The purpose of the doctrine is to assure that a court retains its ability to effect justice."
"The plaintiff bank offered a 3 month trial modification agreement, accepted the payments from the homeowner and denied the final modification after one year, but accepted an additional 10 monthly payments, without protest from the homeowner. The court ordered a hearing to determine if the plaintiff acted in good faith, whether sanctions should be imposed or other measures taken."