Issue: Whether a landlord=s spoliation of evidence can be used against a tenant in any way in a subrogation action?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Spoliation of evidence; Subrogation action; Landlord tenant |
| Jurisdiction: | New York |
| Cited Cases: | 209 A.D.2d 566; 721 N.Y.S.2d 245; 248 A.D. 2d 201; 208 A.D.2d 999; 271 A.D.2d 862; 683 N.Y.S.2d 851; 236 A.D.2d 170; 261 A.D.2d 83 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 06/01/2001 |
New York law regarding spoliation of evidence recognizes that
“courts have discretion to impose sanctions under CPLR 3126 when a party intentionally, contumaciously or in bad faith fails to comply with a discovery order or destroys evidence prior to an adversary=s inspection.” Sanctions may also be appropriate in certain circumstances where a litigation negligently disposes of crucial items of evidence before the opposing party has had an opportunity to view them.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Regenerative Bldg. Constr. Inc., 271 A.D.2d 862, 862 (3d Dep’t 2000) (citation omitted). Among the sanctions that the court may impose when a party alters, loses or destroys evidence are dismissal of that party’s pleading or exclusion of that party’s evidence relating to the destroyed item. See Puccia v. Farley, 261 A.D.2d 83, 85 (3d Dep’t 1999); Squitier v. City of New York, 248 A.D. 2d 201, 203-04 (1st Dep’t 1998). The court may also direct the offending party to provide the opposing party with the factual and data portions of its expert’s report. See,e.g., Romana v. Scalia & DeLucia Plumbing, 721 N.Y.S.2d 245 (2d Dep’t 2001); Gitlitz v. Latham Process Corp., 683 N.Y.S.2d 851 (1st Dep’t 1999).
It is clear, however, that a party that played no role in the loss or destruction of the evidence is not subject to sanctions of any kind. For example, in Maliszewska v. Potamkin New York LP Mitsubishi Sterling, 2001 N.Y. Slip […]