You are here: / / SPOLIATION WARRANTED STRIKING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
, ,

SPOLIATION WARRANTED STRIKING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the destruction of plaintiff’s truck, which was allegedly struck by defendant’s truck, warranted striking the complaint:

… [O]n their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint, the defendants sustained their burden of establishing that the plaintiff was obligated to preserve the truck at the time it was purportedly “seized and disposed” of, that the truck had been seized and disposed of before the defendants had an opportunity to inspect it, and that the truck was relevant to the litigation … . Furthermore, the defendants demonstrated that their ability to prove their defense had been significantly, if not fatally, compromised by the loss of the truck. Under the circumstances presented, the sanction of striking the complaint was appropriate … . Delmur, Inc. v School Constr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 05764, Second Dept 7-24-19\

 

You might also like
No Demonstration Burst Water Pipe Could Have Been the Result of Negligent Inspection or Maintenance; Municipality Immune from Negligent Design
CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
QUEENS COUNTY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE NASSAU COUNTY ACTION, A CORPORATION IS NOT THE SAME PARTY AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE CORPORATION WITHOUT A SHOWING THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT ABSENT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Gun Found In Juvenile’s Shoe (After Juvenile Was Told to Remove His Shoes) Should Have Been Suppressed—Juvenile Could Not Be Arrested and Detained for a Violation (Disorderly Conduct Is Not a Crime) and Nothing More than a Frisk Is Justified During a Temporary Detention Pending the Arrival of a Juvenile’s Parents
DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SCAFFOLD-COLLAPSE CASE... DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER HIS GUILTY PLEA...