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
Hospital Employees, Working With a Non-Employee Attending Physician, Were Not Independently Negligent and Were Not Asked to Follow Orders Which Were Contrary to Normal Practice—Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint Against Hospital Should Have Been Granted
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES ON APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AN APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, THE COURT EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPEAL; THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS BROUGHT BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAL PROPERTY PASSED TO THE BENEFICIARY IN THE WILL UPON DEATH, NOT UPON SUBSEQUENT PROBATE; THEREFORE THE CONVEYANCE WAS VALID AND THE DEED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED VOID (SECOND DEPT).
Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary Status Re: a Contract Between the Village and an Engineer Hired to Inspect the Condominiums/The Contract Cause of Action Precluded the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD (SUBLESSOR) DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED.
Criteria for Discovery in a Special Proceeding Explained/Criteria for Leave to File a Late Notice of Claim Explained
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL AS HE WALKED THROUGH A “ROOM,” NOT A “PASSAGEWAY;” THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING OBSTRUCTIONS IN A “PASSAGEWAY” SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

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