Stolowski v. 234 East 178th Street LLC
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lamerique v. Columbia Univ. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Henriquez-Rodriguez v. 160 W. 118th St. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Jimenez v. Fifty Broad St. Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Poplawski v. 111 Wall St. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Poplawski v. 111 Wall St. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Arias v. Stonhard, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Fabiano v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cook v. HMC Times Square Hotel, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Cook v. HMC Times Square Hotel, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it is entitled to an offset for any collateral source payment that represents reimbursement for a category of loss that corresponds to a category of loss for which damages are awarded in this action (see CPLR 4545; Oden v Chemung County Indus. Dev. Agency, 87 NY2d 81 [1995]). Thus, disclosure of the death benefits that were or will be received by plaintiffs Bellew and Meyran is material and necessary in defense of this action (see CPLR 3101). The collateral source hearing at which a defendant has the opportunity to make the above showing is held after a verdict has been rendered in the plaintiffs favor. However, “[p]retrial discovery is available so defendants can acquire information and documents that may later be used to support a motion for a collateral source hearing” (Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto. Fin. Corp., 50 AD3d 18, 35 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 705 [2008]).
The records of defendant’s post-fire repairs and remedial measures do not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the general rule that evidence of post-accident repairs is generally inadmissible and may never be admitted to prove an admission of negligence (see Fernandez v Higdon El. Co., 220 AD2d 293 [1995]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, “general credibility impeachment” is not an exception. Control is not at issue here since defendant concedes that it owns the premises (see Hyman v Aurora Contrs., 294 AD2d 229 [2002]). The fire
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.