You are here: / / CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.
,

CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.

In a legal malpractice action, plaintiffs alleged their trial attorneys in the personal injury action failed to inform them about a $12 million settlement offer made shortly before the $3.7 million verdict. Defendants-attorneys alleged the plaintiffs were informed of the offer, which was provided in writing, and plaintiffs rejected it. During the deposition of plaintiff-wife (Mrs. Doviak), she was handed the written offer. The plaintiffs argued that handing the offer to Mrs. Doviak constituted spoliation of evidence, because the document could have been tested for fingerprints, and the absence of her fingerprints would have demonstrated she was never provided with the written offer during the trial. The Second Department determined the criteria for spoliation of evidence had not been met:

“The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to prove its claim or defense” … . “[T]he Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” and may, “under appropriate circumstances, impose a sanction even if the destruction occurred through negligence rather than wilfulness, and even if the evidence was destroyed before the spoliator became a party, provided the spoliator was on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation” … . This Court will substitute its judgment for that of the Supreme Court only if that court’s discretion was improvidently exercised … .

Here, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed fingerprint evidence which was critical to their case. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they requested that the offer document be tested for fingerprints, or that it be preserved for forensic testing prior to Mrs. Doviak’s deposition, or otherwise informed the defendants of their desire to conduct fingerprint analysis. The plaintiffs’ boilerplate demand during discovery that they be permitted to examine original documents on request does not satisfy this requirement, nor is it reasonable to contend that the defendants should have anticipated the plaintiffs’ desire for forensic testing of the offer document … . Thus, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, in handing the original document to Mrs. Doviak at her deposition, the defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed potential forensic evidence … . In any event, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, by failing to preserve the offer document for forensic testing, the defendants had fatally compromised the plaintiffs’ ability to prove their claims … . Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 01636, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)/EVIDENCE (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)/SPOLIATION (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)

You might also like
Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial
PETITIONER’S RENT SUBSIDY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BASED UPON THE UNWANTED PRESENCE IN THE HOME OF A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER, TERMINATION OF BENEFITS VIOLATED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENSE WITNESS HELD OUT AS DISINTERESTED AND OBJECTIVE WAS IN FACT EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION.
UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT MADE A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL SADISM DISORDER AND REMITTED THE MATTER; SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE FINDING AND HELD A NEW NONJURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S MANDATE (SECOND DEPT).​
CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD IN THIS LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ATTACKING THE PROCEDURE USED TO ENACT LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (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

PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT;... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OFFICER DEMONSTRATED RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY...