AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MANUEL MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ROYAL-PAK SYSTEMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. ROYAL-PAK SYSTEMS, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

Plaintiff's 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 A.D.2d 13; Razzaque v. Krakow Taxi, 238 A.D.2d 161, 162; Gomez v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 598). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MARTINEZ v. ROYAL-PAK SYS
(Dec 24, 2002)