From the Pants on Fire department:
The plaintiff appeals their loss of a proof hearing against the non-settling, defaulting defendant ... and loses, with the Appellate Division stating:
Plaintiff appeals from that order arguing reversal is required because, although the judge "seemed to have no problem with recognizing [defendant's] liability under the PLA[,] [t]he problem is that [the judge] then committed a quantum leap by holding that, because plaintiff settled for an adequate sum of money, she should receive nothing from the defaulting defendant." The judge said no such thing, and we affirm substantially for the reasons Judge De La Cruz set forth in her cogent written decision.
[Underlining added. Quotation marks and brackets in original.]
No comments:
Post a Comment