Jeff S Korek

June 08, 2022 | New York Law Journal

As it stands today, and as it is unlikely to change without an act of the state legislature, a plaintiff who is the victim of blatant medical malpractice but does not become aware of it until after two-and-a-half years from the initial treatment date, will not have any recourse if the condition is not either cancer or a malignant tumor.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abe Melamed

9 minute read

November 18, 2020 | New York Law Journal

To save thousands of New York business from closing their doors permanently, New York courts should look to the New Jersey case 'Optical Services USA/JCI v. Franklin Mutual Insurance Co.,' for a decision and rationale that is consistent with New York jurisprudence.

By Jeff S. Korek and Anthony Makarov

6 minute read

June 04, 2018 | New York Law Journal

When the primary reason plaintiff seeks to introduce rebuttal testimony is to simply bolster their own case and counter the defendant's, courts generally do not permit the rebuttal testimony.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed

11 minute read

June 07, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed write that although the theory is rooted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision more than 130 years old, it is a decision that has never been overturned, and is aged like a fine wine, ready to be trotted out and showcased in an argument that attorneys should be bound at trial by their opening statements.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed

10 minute read

December 16, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Jeff S. Korek, of Gersowitz Libo & Korek, examines the ramification if a civil defendant invokes the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Can a plaintiff's attorney in the civil action use the defendant's silence to draw a negative inference for the jury about the defendant's liability? These are just a few of the questions that arise in this complicated intersection between criminal and civil law.

By Jeff S. Korek

22 minute read

May 19, 2016 | New York Law Journal

The first and foremost principle of dealing with potentially negative evidence against a client is "do not attempt to mislead the jury and try to hide the evidence." But how do you approach effectively mitigating such evidence, in order to present your client in the most favorable light? The best practice is to move by motion in limine, prior to jury selection, to have the evidence excluded, but what if that fails?

By Jeff S. Korek

23 minute read

November 23, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed write: One extremely effective, yet fairly uncommon method of taking advantage of the first, and likely most important impression an attorney will make on a jury—a method that can potentially win a case from the start—involves the use of visual aids in conjunction with an opening statement.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed

14 minute read

November 20, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed write: One extremely effective, yet fairly uncommon method of taking advantage of the first, and likely most important impression an attorney will make on a jury—a method that can potentially win a case from the start—involves the use of visual aids in conjunction with an opening statement.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed

14 minute read

July 17, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed write: Oftentimes lawyers become so entrenched in doing the orthodox that they end up losing out on great opportunities to strengthen credibility with a jury. What's more, attorneys can get caught up in the vision of fighting tooth and nail, line by line, and as a result miss out on important perspectives that can help their case simply because they refuse to think outside the box.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed

11 minute read

July 16, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed write: Oftentimes lawyers become so entrenched in doing the orthodox that they end up losing out on great opportunities to strengthen credibility with a jury. What's more, attorneys can get caught up in the vision of fighting tooth and nail, line by line, and as a result miss out on important perspectives that can help their case simply because they refuse to think outside the box.

By Jeff S. Korek and Abraham Z. Melamed

11 minute read