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
DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE REOPENED THE NEGLECT HEARING WHEN MOTHER ARRIVED AT COURT SHORTLY AFTER SUMMATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO SUSPEND CHILD SUPPORT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAS CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER SUPPORT MATTERS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE FAILED TO COMPLETE PROVIDING DISCOVERY BY THE TIME THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS FILED PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (5); DEFENDANT’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT A MOTION ON NOTICE, AN APPEAL IS NOT AVAILABLE BUT A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE; THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DEFAULT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT ABANDON THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Church Had No Special Relationship With Plaintiff, Church Had No Authority to Exercise Control Over Conduct of Man Who Injured Plaintiff/Therefore Church Did Not Owe Plaintiff a Duty of Care
THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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...