You are here: / / Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented...
,

Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the failure to preserve a broken jar, the cause of plaintiff’s injury, warranted an adverse inference charge.  Whether the jar was relevant to the plaintiff’s case was a question raised by conflicting expert opinions. The question of fact must first be resolved by the jury before the adverse inference charge could be applied by the jury:

While the lesser sanction of an adverse inference may be appropriate for spoliation of the subject jar …, under the circumstances of this case, an issue of fact exists as to whether spoliation of relevant evidence occurred. The sanction of an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence is not warranted when the evidence destroyed is not relevant to the ultimate issues to be determined in the case … . …[T]he plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit averring that she could have determined how long the jar had been broken by analyzing the mold contained in the jar, and the defendant submitted an expert affidavit disputing that such a conclusion could have been reached. If the opinion of the defendant’s expert were credited, then an adverse inference would not be warranted, because the lost evidence would not have been relevant to the plaintiff’s case … . Thus, this issue of fact should be placed before the jury, along with the inferences to be drawn therefrom … . The jury should be instructed that, if it credits the opinion of the defendant’s expert that no conclusion could have been reached with reasonable certainty regarding how long the jar had been broken by analyzing the mold contained in the jar, then no adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant. On the other hand, the jury should be advised that, if it credits the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert that she could have determined how long the jar had been broken by analyzing the mold inside, then it would be permitted to draw an adverse inference against the defendant … . Pennachio v Costco Wholesale Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05165, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
THE CITY’S STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WERE DONE IN THE SUMMER WHEN NO SCHOOL CHILDREN USED THE INTERSECTION, THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE STUDIES HAD CONCLUDED NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WAS NECESSARY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN IN ITS PLACEMENT DECISION; STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LEASE DID NOT OBLIGATE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE AREA AND NO STATUTORY VIOLATION WAS ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, I.E., FINDING THE DEFECT TRIVIAL (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE INJURED FIREFIGHTER BEGAN RECEIVING GENERAL MUNICIPLA LAW 207-a BENEFITS, THE CITY COULD NOT REQUIRE FIREFIGHTER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR THOSE BENEFITS AND THEN DENY THEM.
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THERE HAD BEEN NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY IN THE PAST AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE ALLEYWAY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Petitioner Sufficiently Alleged She Is a Nonmarital Child of the Decedent—Probate... Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the...