MARTINEZ v. ROYAL-PAK SYS

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.