You are here: / / A VIDEO OF AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEES WAS EITHER...
, ,

A VIDEO OF AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEES WAS EITHER NEGLIGENTLY OR WILLFULLY LOST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RULED DEFENDANTS COULD NOT INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN AFFIDAVIT DESCRIBING WHAT THE VIDEO DEPICTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sanction imposed on defendants for spoliation of evidence was appropriate. Defendants did not preserve the video of an incident in which plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by employees of the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS). Plaintiff’s attorney had specifically requested that the video be preserved. The day after the incident the video was reviewed by a security who described the video in an affidavit. When the video was not produced by the defendants, Supreme Court ruled the defendants could not introduce any evidence which contradicted the affidavit describing the video:

“A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . “A culpable state of mind for purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence”… . “The Supreme Court has broad discretion to determine a sanction for the spoliation of evidence”  … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record demonstrates that the relevant video evidence was owned and controlled by DHS, that DHS possessed an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time that it was lost or destroyed, and that DHS negligently or wilfully failed to ensure its preservation … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the sanction imposed by the Supreme Court provided “proportionate relief” to the plaintiff and was not an improvident exercise of discretion … . Oppenheimer v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02401, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

You might also like
WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).
DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY POLICE OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE EFFECT SHE HAD NO REASON TO FEEL UNSAFE DID NOT CREATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP; THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AT THE HANDS OF THE FATHER OF HER YOUNG CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Add Doctor to Medical Malpractice Action After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—All the Relation-Back Criteria Were Met
NEGLIGENT CONCEALMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITAL ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE BILLING PRACTICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEFENSES, JOINDER RESULTED IN DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS... THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION;...