Zuppa sighting October 20, 2016

A few people I regularly talk to ask what happened to Zuppa.  I saw him in Central Islip today in District Court and he has confirmed to me that he is doing well.  His goatee has gone a little gray but he looks, talks and acts the same way.

  1. By the way jason i usually do not get a ten dollar bill for my guitar playing outside the court.

    i want to thank you for the ten spot you dropped in my guitar case.

    people started throwing in quarters instead of the usual pennies after they saw that.

    what do you think of my rendition of feliz navidad.

    friggin court officers threw me out of the parking lot after you left.

    i had to play on carelton ave. i almost got shot by a member of ms-13.

    i called the scpd but they said they wouldn’t come: “its a dangerous neighborhood bud … i don’t get paid enough for that.”

    • jtlawadmin says:

      One more thing. I am not representing people on 511’s on Long Island on flat fees anymore. I feel like it is a never ending circle-jerk. The city will give you a 511-a without clearing up the license. Suffolk will probably give you a 511.1, after some pleading. Nassau? I will pull out the remaining hair on my head.

    • jtlawadmin says:

      And of course, the client never cleared up his suspensions so we have to go back again in December. Am I the only one that represents VTL 511 defendants who promise to clear up their license and never do?

  2. TRUMP says:

    Sounds like Capt America is Making America Great Again

Rocket docket at the First Department October 18, 2016

Global Liberty v. Coastal Anesthesia
Another attempt is being made to demonstrate that “rocket docket” preclusion is subject to an interest of justice review and that CPLR 2005 applies in the correct situation.
Procedurally, the submissions were 5-days late and a colorable showing of law

IME no show not upheld October 13, 2016

Matter of Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. Kemper A. Unitrin Bus. v Professional Health Radiology, 2016 NY Slip Op 06767 (1st Dept. 2016)
I read through this case.  The carrier left out page two of one of the letters (that contain the reimbursement language) and, after the arbitration, sought to include

  1. Sun Tzu says:

    Dumb question. Of course Unitrin did not attempt to vacate. They likely just stuck the new material in the master arb brief. Insurers typically have a free pass in THE AAA to raise new matters and new proof on appeal. In fact when the proof is not there but might be, master arbs routinely remand to give the insurer a second bite at the apple. Haven’t seen this sort of treatment with medical providers even once.

    Jason, what the hells is going on with the text in your comments, i.e. lack of indication of caps?

    • jtlawadmin says:


      I will contact my web guy leisure suit larry. Since i moved everything to the dedicated website, there have been issues. This is hosted on WordPress. There should be an upgrade or plugin somewhere. I need assistance with this issue. Tech and computer issues are beyond my ken of knowledge. Think of the famous “Partner Affirmation” that created Alrof, damns Ameriprise, has made my life needlessly difficult and analogize it to my .php and .html skills. ughhhhhh

  2. Sun Tzu says:

    I wonder what happened at the master arb level- did unitrin attempt to vacate its default? Can’t locate on Modria

Default granted but summary judgment motion denied October 13, 2016

Global Liberty Ins. Co. v W. Joseph Gorum, M.D., P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 06680 (2d Dept. 2016)
(1) “Here, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff submitted proof of service of the summons and complaint upon Gorum (seeBusiness Corporation Law § 306[b][i]; CPLR 3215[g][4][i]) and that Gorum h

Snooze and lose rule – Tremendous consequences October 13, 2016

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. (Cappadonia), 2016 NY Slip Op 06584 (4th Dept. 2016)
This is every Plaintiff personal injury attorney’s dream.  Surprisingly, it happens all the time.
(1) “Respondent obtained an automobile liability insurance policy from petitioner for a pickup truck and t

Fee Schedule and 8 unit issue October 13, 2016

Liberty Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51409(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Plaintiff properly argues on appeal that defendant failed to establish its defense, that the fees charged exceeded the amounts set forth in the workers’ compensation fee schedule, as a

EUO loss (again) October 13, 2016

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2016 NY Slip Op 51407(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Plaintiff correctly argues that, because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the examinations under oath in question, de

  1. Rookie says:

    Will check and advise

  2. Anonymous says:

    Vell it might be … and it might be not. nyet … i vill not tell you

IME no show – reasonableness not enterained October 13, 2016

Stracar Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51431(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
The court found that there was a question as to the reasonableness of the IME requests because there was evidence that plaintiff’s assignor had appeared for other IMEs. However, t

  1. Sun Tzu says:

    So Allstate is running with what the court gives them– reasonableness is never addressed without proof of a written objection thereto. So When the insured attends IME’s, insurer just keeps demanding more until they fail to attend.

The verifications were not mailed October 13, 2016

Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51443(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
These were affidavits I inherited from prior counsel.  They explained NF-10s but did not mention Additional Verification requests.  There was a residual catch all, but this did not work.

  1. Sun Tzu says:

    Existentialism in No-fault. Hells yea. wHO NEEDS A MOTORCYCLE.

Verification non-receipt – Partial response insufficient October 13, 2016

Compas Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51441(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was not required to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims upon receipt of a “partial response” to defendant’s verification requests (