You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S...
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING THE VIDEO IN EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s should have been precluded from introducing in evidence a surveillance video depicting plaintiff’s accident. Although the video had been explicitly demanded by plaintiff, defendants did not produce it until after plaintiff’s deposition, six months after the entry of the compliance order:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion seeking discovery sanctions. Plaintiff demonstrated that defendants acted willfully and contumaciously when they failed to turn over video footage of plaintiff’s accident … . Defendants failed to produce the video in response to repeated explicit demands and repeatedly denied the existence of any video of plaintiff’s accident. It was not until after plaintiff’s deposition on May 20, 2024 and during the June 27, 2024 deposition of defendants’ building manager that defendants revealed the existence of the video. While only six months elapsed from entry of the compliance order to the belated production of the video, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the late production. Defendants should be sanctioned for their dilatory behavior in producing the surveillance video after plaintiff’s deposition had already taken place … .

Given the totality of the circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted the lesser sanction of preclusion … . Larue v 1201-31 Lafayette Ground Gowner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-25-25

Practice Point: Here there was an explicit demand for any video of plaintiff’s accident but defendants did not produce to video until after plaintiff’s deposition. Introduction of the video in evidence was precluded.

 

You might also like
Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​
Ladder Which “Kicked Out” from Under Plaintiff Entitled Plaintiff to Partial Summary Judgment/Replacement of Cracked Glass Constituted Covered “Repair” Not Routine Maintenance
Confusing Jury Instruction Re: the Justification Defense Required Reversal of Murder Conviction in the Interest of Justice/Defendant’s Attorney Should Have Been Allowed to Testify at the Suppression Hearing—There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Attorney Called and Told the Police He Represented the Defendant and Defendant Should Not Be Questioned
Late Amendment of Complaint (After Note of Issue Filed) Should Have Been Granted
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT.
No Exigent Circumstances to Justify Search of a Closed Container in Defendant’s Possession Upon His Arrest for Minor Non Violent Offenses to Which the Contents of the Bag Could Have Had No Connection
​ THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ADDING ALLEGATIONS WHICH INCREASE A DEFENDANT’S EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PREJUDICE TO THE 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

PETITIONERS, THE NEW YORK TAXI WORKERS ALLIANCE, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE... INDIGENT PARTIES WHO ARE ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE A...