You are here: / / THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS...
,

THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS CAPTURED ON VIDEO WHICH WAS NEGLIGENTLY ERASED; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE GLASS BROKE WHEN PLAINTIFF PULLED ON THE DOOR; AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUILDING’S SECURITY COMPANY WHO SAW THE VIDEO CLAIMED PLAINTIFF PUNCHED THE GLASS; PRECLUSION OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE VIDEO WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the video showing plaintiff’s injury from broken glass in a door was negligently, not intentionally, erased. Therefore the proper sanction was an adverse inference charge, not the preclusion of any evidence about the contents of the video. Plaintiff alleged the glass broke when plaintiff pulled on the door. Williams, an employee of the building-security company who viewed the video, claimed plaintiff punched the glass:

… [P]laintiff showed that the defendants had an obligation to preserve the video surveillance footage of the incident at the time that the footage was destroyed. Williams learned that the glass in the door was broken the same day that the incident occurred, and she investigated and documented it. Furthermore, the defendants’ site manager testified at a deposition that the plaintiff’s mother called after the incident to report that the plaintiff’s arm had gone through the glass in the door, causing “severe injury,” and that he was in the hospital. After receiving this report, the site manager testified, she spoke with Williams and learned that Williams had viewed video surveillance footage depicting the incident and had created an incident report. “Given the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and the immediate documentation and investigation into the accident by the defendants’ employee[ ], the defendants were on notice of possible litigation and thus under an obligation to preserve any evidence that might be needed for future litigation” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendants from presenting any evidence regarding Williams’s observations of the video surveillance footage, as this sanction disproportionately eliminated their defense to this action. Instead, under the circumstances, including the negligent, rather than intentional, destruction of the video surveillance footage and the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff, the court should have directed that an adverse inference charge be given against the defendants at trial with respect to the video surveillance footage of the incident … . Battle v Fulton Park Site 4 Houses, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00114, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: Here preclusion of testimony about the contents of a negligently (not intentionally) erased video which depicted the incident was deemed too severe a spoliation sanction because preclusion eliminated the only defense to the action. An adverse inference charge was deemed the appropriate sanction.

 

You might also like
DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED.
Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act
PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Set Aside Verdict Properly Denied—The Jury Determined Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident—Analytical Criteria Explained
City Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Qualified Immunity for a Planning Decision Re: Design of Playground Equipment
THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (SECOND DEPT).
The Totality of Circumstances Provided the Police Officer with Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity and Thereby Justified Pursuit of the Defendant
PLANTIFF HAD NOT INFORMED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THIS PERSONAL INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (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

HERE AN INDEPENDENT CLEANING CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY CREATED A DANGEROUS FLOOR... THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING...