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
Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate “Searching Inquiry” Before Allowed Defendant to Represent Himself—New Trial Ordered
IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BASED UPON ALLEGEDLY ADULTERATED FUEL OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE NUMEROSITY REQUIREMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND LEAVE TO RENEW WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL COURT AS FACT-FINDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEASE AT THE HEART OF THE DISPUTE AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE (FIRST DEPT).
THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm
ALTHOUGH THE EASEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED IN PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CHAIN OF TITLE, IT WAS INDEXED UNDER A BLOCK AND LOT NUMBER SYSTEM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE EASEMENT AND WAS NOT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (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...