You are here: / / DESTRUCTION (SPOLIATION) OF EVIDENCE WARRANTED STRIKING THE PLEADINGS.
,

DESTRUCTION (SPOLIATION) OF EVIDENCE WARRANTED STRIKING THE PLEADINGS.

The First Department determined defendant's pleadings were properly struck because defendant destroyed emails relevant to plaintiff's defamation action:

Defendant undertook an affirmative course of action resulting in destruction of relevant emails, though she represented otherwise during sworn testimony. As the documents received from third-party recipients confirm, the files defendant destroyed are highly relevant and tend to substantiate plaintiffs' claims. Evidence of defendant's willful and prejudicial destruction of evidence warrants the sanction of striking her pleadings … . Where a party disposes of evidence without moving for a protective order, a negative inference may be drawn that the destruction was willful … . Willfulness may also be inferred from a party's repeated failure to comply with discovery directives … . It should also be noted that this Court has upheld the striking of pleadings where the destruction of critical evidence occurs through ordinary negligence … . Chan v Cheung, 2016 NY Slip Op 02731, 1st Dept 4-12-16


You might also like
STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR FELONY ASSAULT.
ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).
Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine Court Order Improperly Applied—Related Conspiracy Conviction Vacated/Emails and Newspaper Articles, Although Hearsay, Properly Admitted
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS FOREMAN WHEN INJURED BY AN IMPROPERLY HOISTED LOAD, HE COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEG OF A CLOTHING RACK IN A STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST 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

MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS... TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE VERDICT IN MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTI...