Joshua Kelner

Joshua Kelner

January 24, 2022 | New York Law Journal

Let's Get Physical: The First Department's Rejection of a Spoliation Analysis to Medical Care Prior to an Adverse Party's Physical Examination

In its recent decision in 'Gilliam v. Uni Holdings', the First Department held that "the condition of one's body is not the type of evidence that is subject to a spoliation analysis." In this edition of their Trial Practice column, Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner discuss the winding road of decisions that led to 'Gilliam' and the significance of 'Gilliam' itself.

By Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner

11 minute read

May 24, 2021 | New York Law Journal

New Rules of Engagement: Major Changes to NY's Rules of Court

Many practitioners are unaware that, this past February, the court system implemented new rules of practice for New York courts. Some of these rules significantly change the procedures governing court appearances, discovery and motion practice. In their Trial Practice column, Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner discuss what they believe are the most important new rules.

By Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner

11 minute read

November 25, 2019 | New York Law Journal

New Developments in the Sidewalk Law: 'He v. Troon Mgmt.'

In their Trial Practice column, Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner discuss the recent case 'He v. Troon Mgmt.', which held that out-of-possession landowners cannot shift the duty to maintain their sidewalks to their tenants. The authors survey the Court of Appeals' case law concerning the Sidewalk Law, and explain where the law now stands following He.

By Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner

12 minute read

May 01, 2018 | New York Law Journal

An Analysis of the Court of Appeals' Decision in 'Rodriguez v. City of New York'

The ultimate effect of 'Rodriguez' is to make the rules applicable to summary judgment consistent with those that have been followed at trial since the enactment of Article 14-A. A plaintiff's comparative negligence does not, either on motion practice or at trial, prevent recognition of his right of recovery from the defendant.

By Joshua Kelner

10 minute read