You are here: / Evidence
,

No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed

The First Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based upon allegations of spoliation of evidence.  In response to plaintiff’s counsel’s initial request, 84 seconds of videotape depicting plaintiff’s slip and fall were preserved. Subsequently plaintiff’s attorney requested video of the six hours preceding the accident.  By that time, however, the tapes had been automatically erased:

On a motion for spoliation sanctions, the moving party must establish that (1) the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind,” which may include ordinary negligence; and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant to the moving party’s claim or defense … . In deciding whether to impose sanctions, courts look to the extent that the spoliation of evidence may prejudice a party, and whether a particular sanction is necessary as a matter of elementary fairness … . The burden is on the party requesting sanctions to make the requisite showing … . * * *

While it is true that a plaintiff is entitled to inspect tapes to determine whether the area of an accident is depicted and “should not be compelled to accept defendant’s self-serving statement concerning the contents of the destroyed tapes” … , this principle does not translate into an obligation on a defendant to preserve hours of tapes indefinitely each time an incident occurs on its premises in anticipation of a plaintiff’s request for them. That obligation would impose an unreasonable burden on property owners and lessees.   Duluc v AC & L Food Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05243, 1st Dept 7-10-14

 

, ,

Party Moving for Summary Judgment May Not Submit Expert Affidavits With the Identity of the Expert Redacted

In the summary judgment context, the Third Department determined the moving party in a medical malpractice action, unlike the non-moving party, could not submit affidavits from experts with the names of the experts redacted:

In order to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendants were required to “tender[] sufficient, competent, admissible evidence demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of fact” … . Among other submissions, defendants provided an affidavit from a medical expert whose identity was redacted and who opined on the appropriateness of plaintiff’s medical care and the adequacy of the warnings given to plaintiff.efendants also submitted an unredacted version of the affidavit for Supreme Court’s in camera review. Because defendants were the movants for summary judgment, their submission of an anonymous expert affidavit was incompetent evidence not proper for consideration upon the motion … .

While the Legislature has allowed for some protection from disclosure of the identities of medical experts during “[t]rial preparation” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), and, consistent with this intention, courts have found it appropriate to allow nonmovants in the summary judgment context to also withhold experts’ identities from their adversaries upon the reasoning that such parties did not choose to abandon the disclosure protections provided during trial preparation …, the Legislature has shown no broad intention of protecting experts from accountability at the point where their opinions are employed for the purpose of judicially resolving a case or a cause of action. Further, we see no compelling reason to allow for such anonymity that would outweigh the benefit that accountability provides in promoting candor … . Requiring a movant to reveal an expert’s identity in such circumstances would allow a nonmovant to meaningfully pursue information such as whether that expert has ever espoused a contradictory opinion, whether the individual is actually a recognized expert and whether that individual has been discredited in the relevant field prior to any possible resolution of the case on the motion … . Further, any expert who anticipates a future opportunity to espouse a contradictory opinion would be on notice that public record could be used to hold him or her to account for any unwarranted discrepancy between such opinions … . For these reasons, we will not consider the incompetent affidavit of defendants’ medical expert. Rivera v Albany Med Ctr Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05236, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

,

Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Waived by Making a Motion to Dismiss on that Ground/Process Server’s Testimony About Attempts to Locate Defendant Lacked Credibility

The Second Department determined the defendant did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by submitting a motion to dismiss on that ground.  The court further determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint based upon the process server’s lack of credibility about his attempts to locate the defendant:

A defendant may waive the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss … . A defendant may also waive lack of personal jurisdiction by entering into a stipulation of settlement of the action … . Additionally, a defendant may waive lack of personal jurisdiction by making payments pursuant to a judgment or wage garnishment for a substantial period of time …  However, where the defendant’s only participation in the action is the submission of a motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is not waived … . * * *

Service of process pursuant to the affix-and-mail provisions of CPLR 308(4) is only permitted where service by personal delivery under CPLR 308(1) or by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion and a subsequent mailing pursuant to CPLR 308(2) “cannot be made with due diligence” (CPLR 308[4]). ” For the purpose of satisfying the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4), it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment'” … . The process server’s testimony that he inquired as to the defendant’s whereabouts from a neighbor was not credible, since he was unable to provide any description of the neighbor—even a description of the neighbor’s sex. The affidavit of service referred to the “person spoken to,” but provided no further description, although spaces were provided to insert the person’s sex, skin color, hair color, approximate age, height, and weight.

The determination of the hearing court as to the credibility of the process server should not be disturbed since the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and listening to that witness. Cadlerock Joint Venture LP v Kierstedt, 2014 NY Slip Op 05147, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)

The Second Department described the types of documents which will not support a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1):

“A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) will be granted only if the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim'” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)”… . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, an affidavit by a … project manager did not constitute documentary evidence with the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . JA Lee Elec Inc v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05159, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

, , ,

Criteria for Discovery from Non-Party Explained/Criteria for Discovery of Trade Secrets Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for discovery demanded of a non-party [Morgan Stanley] and described the relevant considerations when discovery is opposed on the ground that the material requested constitutes trade secrets.  The court concluded Morgan Stanley had demonstrated certain of the discovery requests related to protected trade secrets:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the “circumstances or reasons” requiring disclosure. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals' recent decision in Matter of Kapon v Koch ( ____ NY3d ____, 2014 NY Slip Op 02327 [2014]), disclosure from a nonparty requires no more than a showing that the requested information is “material and necessary,” i.e. relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action (id., *1). However, “the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the circumstances or reasons' underlying the subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it), and the witness, in moving to quash, must establish either that the discovery sought is utterly irrelevant' to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” (id.). Should the nonparty witness meet this burden, “the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary' to the prosecution or defense of an action, i.e., that it is relevant” (id.). * * *

Notwithstanding New York's policy of liberal discovery (see id., * 4-5), a party seeking disclosure of trade secrets must show that such information is “indispensable to the ascertainment of truth and cannot be acquired in any other way” … . A witness who objects to disclosure on the ground that the requested information constitutes a trade secret bears only a minimal initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a trade secret … . Contrary to [plaintiff's] contention, Morgan Stanley met its minimal initial burden of showing that the documents requested in paragraphs 11 through 19 in the section of the subpoena duces tecum entitled “Requests for Production” contained trade secrets … . Thus, the burden shifted to [plaintiff] to demonstrate that the information contained in those documents was indispensable to the ascertainment of truth, and could not be acquired in any other way … . Ferolito v Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05153, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient

The Second Department determined the “physical injury” element of robbery in the second degree had not been proven:

“Physical injury” is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The subject complainant testified that he sustained an injury to his left ring finger after he was attacked from behind and fell to the ground. The complainant went to the hospital after the incident, where his bruised finger was bandaged and placed in a splint, but X rays revealed no broken bones and there was no evidence presented that he was prescribed pain medication. A “bruise” was still present four years after the incident, but the complainant only testified generally that he felt pain on his hand and arms immediately after the incident, and he did not testify that the injury limited or diminished his ability to use his finger for any length of time. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of physical condition … . People v Boney, 2014 NY Slip Op 05197, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

, ,

Jury’s Finding a Party Was at Fault But Such Fault Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Should Not Have Been Set Aside as Inconsistent and Against the Weight of the Evidence

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should not have been granted.  Plaintiff was injured when he dove to catch a ball in an area which had poles sticking up out of the ground.  The plaintiff, who was 10 years old at the time, knew the poles were there.  The jury found that the property owner was at fault but that such fault was not the proximate cause of the accident.  The Second Department held that the verdict was not inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence:

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . ” [W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view'” … . Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the conclusion that the infant plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Henry v Town of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05157, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the failure to preserve a broken jar, the cause of plaintiff’s injury, warranted an adverse inference charge.  Whether the jar was relevant to the plaintiff’s case was a question raised by conflicting expert opinions. The question of fact must first be resolved by the jury before the adverse inference charge could be applied by the jury:

While the lesser sanction of an adverse inference may be appropriate for spoliation of the subject jar …, under the circumstances of this case, an issue of fact exists as to whether spoliation of relevant evidence occurred. The sanction of an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence is not warranted when the evidence destroyed is not relevant to the ultimate issues to be determined in the case … . …[T]he plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit averring that she could have determined how long the jar had been broken by analyzing the mold contained in the jar, and the defendant submitted an expert affidavit disputing that such a conclusion could have been reached. If the opinion of the defendant’s expert were credited, then an adverse inference would not be warranted, because the lost evidence would not have been relevant to the plaintiff’s case … . Thus, this issue of fact should be placed before the jury, along with the inferences to be drawn therefrom … . The jury should be instructed that, if it credits the opinion of the defendant’s expert that no conclusion could have been reached with reasonable certainty regarding how long the jar had been broken by analyzing the mold contained in the jar, then no adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant. On the other hand, the jury should be advised that, if it credits the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert that she could have determined how long the jar had been broken by analyzing the mold inside, then it would be permitted to draw an adverse inference against the defendant … . Pennachio v Costco Wholesale Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05165, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s Examining Physician Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum was properly denied, even though the billing documents for the insurance company’s (State Farm’s) examining physician were sought for cross-examination and impeachment purposes:

State Farm moved to quash the subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2304 on the ground that it was plaintiff’s intent to use the subpoenaed materials to impeach the examining physician’s general credibility. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that she intended to use the subpoenaed documents to cross-examine the examining physician at trial with respect to his bias or interest. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

“It is . . . well settled that a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be granted only where the materials sought are utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . “Moreover, the burden of establishing that the requested documents and records are utterly irrelevant is on the person being subpoenaed” … . It is “proper to allow cross-examination of a physician regarding the fact that the defendant’s insurance company retained him to examine the plaintiff in order to show bias or interest on the part of the witness” … . Questions concerning the bias, motive or interest of a witness are relevant and should be “freely permitted and answered” …  and, thus, plaintiff is entitled to discovery materials that will assist her in preparing such questions. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Dominici v Ford, 2014 NY Slip Op 05081, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed

The Third Department determined County Court erred by imposing $100,000 restitution without a hearing.  The People had determined the $100,000 figure was excessive and had requested restitution in the approximate amount of $32,000:

….[W]e agree with defendant that County Court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of $100,000 without a hearing. By statute, when a court requires restitution, it must make a finding as to the actual amount of loss and, “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]…). Defendant sufficiently preserved this challenge to the increased amount of restitution, in that defense counsel and the People questioned it at sentencing … . Upon review, we find that there is no evidence in the record to support the court’s imposition of $100,000 in restitution. To the contrary, at sentencing the People characterized such figure as “excessive,” stated that they “lacked sufficient documentation and proof” to support that amount, and proffered evidence supporting restitution in the amount of $32,240, a figure to which the victim, the court and defendant had all agreed. Further, there are statutory limits on the amount of restitution, which may be exceeded, as relevant here, provided “‘the amount in excess [is] limited to the return of the victim’s property, including money, or the equivalent value thereof'” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a restitution hearing or a redetermination of restitution consistent with the plea agreement. Given that “[a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” …, under the circumstances here, upon remittal, defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea if a hearing is held and the amount of restitution imposed exceeds the originally agreed upon amount, i.e., $32,240. People v Pleasant, 2014 NY Slip Op 04981, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

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