You are here: / / STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION,...

STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a discovery violation had occurred, but it did not involve spoliation of evidence and striking defendant’s (the Clinic’s) answer was too severe a sanction. This is a medical malpractice action alleging a failure to diagnose breast cancer. The plaintiff sought reports generated by software (CAD) used to detect breast cancer:

… [J]ust prior to the scheduled date for trial, plaintiff issued a subpoena duces tecum on defendants requesting CAD structured reports. Defendants objected to the subpoena and … plaintiff moved to strike defendants’ answers or for other sanctions for defendants’ discovery violation. In response, defendants were eventually able to generate the CAD structured reports and provided them to plaintiff. …

… [A]lthough we agree with the court that plaintiff established that a discovery violation occurred, we conclude that the sanction of striking the answer of the Clinic was too severe under the circumstances of this case … . This case is not similar to a spoliation case because the CAD structured reports were never destroyed but, rather, were not generated and produced in a timely manner . We conclude that the Clinic should be sanctioned by imposing costs upon it for any additional expenses plaintiff incurred as a result of the delay in disclosure … . Woloszuk v Logan-Young, 2018 NY Slip Op 04176, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCOVERY (STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/SANCTIONS (DISCOVERY VIOLATION, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILD, THE PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING, HOWEVER, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Possible Error of Law Committed by Judge Did Not Warrant a Prohibition Action
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT).
New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania Accident (Where There Is No Seatbelt Defense)—Defense Is Not a Conduct-Regulating Law (Which Would Trigger the Application of Pennsylvania Law)—Rather the Defense Relates to the Allocation of Damages (Which Supports the Application of New York Law)
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE THE ROBBERY VICTIM’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Storm in Progress Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant in Slip and Fall Case
NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE TIME DEFENDANT RAN AS THE POLICE APPROACHED THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE POLICE WERE GOING TO CITE DEFENDANT FOR TRESPASS OR VIOLATION OF AN OPEN-CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION BY RUNNING; DEFENDANT’S RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST; THE PEOPLE’S ALTERNATIVE PROBABLE CAUSE ARGUMENT (TRESPASS AND OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION), ALTHOUGH PRESENTED TO THE SUPPRESSION COURT, WAS NOT RULED ON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FOURTH 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

ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT). PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE...