spoliation doctrine in New York

2024Corp. , 106 AD3d 713 [2d Dept 2013]; Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C ., 103 AD3d 871 [2d Dept 2013]).

2024Corp. , 106 AD3d 713 [2d Dept 2013]; Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C ., 103 AD3d 871 [2d Dept 2013]).

2026"A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense" (<i>Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A.</i>, 26 NY3d 543, 547 [internal quotation marks omitted]; <i>see</i> <i>Golan v North Shore-Long Is.

2025Auth., 174 AD3d 784 , 786 [2nd Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) "A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show [1] that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, [2] that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and [3] that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense." (Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A., 26 NY3d 543, 547 [2015]

2025Realty Mgt., Inc. , 64 AD3d 627, 629 ; see Barnaman v Bishop Hucles Episcopal Nursing Home , 213 AD3d 896, 899 ).

2025Realty Mgt., Inc. , 64 AD3d 627, 629 ; see Barnaman v Bishop Hucles Episcopal Nursing Home , 213 AD3d 896, 899 ).

2021As to the plaintiff's cross motion, "under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby [preventing] the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading" ( Denoyelles v Gallagher , 40 AD3d 1027, 1027 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2019"Similarly, under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned" ( UMS Solutions, Inc. v Biosound Esaote, Inc. , 145 AD3d at 832 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Denoyelles v Gallagher , 40 AD3d 1027 ).

2014“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” (Neve v City of New York, 117 AD3d 1006 , 1008 *618 [2014]; see CPLR 3126; Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d 566, 567 [2010]).

2013In addition, CEI failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on its claim of spoliation of evidence. “ ‘Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the nonresponsible party of the ability to prove its claim, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading’ ” (Shay v Mozer, Inc., 80 AD3d 687, 688 [2011], quoting Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d 566, 567 [2010]).

2016John’s Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342-343 [2003]).

2012John’s Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342 [2003]; see Coleman v Putnam Hosp.

2024Corp. , 106 AD3d 713 [2d Dept 2013]; Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C ., 103 AD3d 871 [2d Dept 2013]).

2017Pursuant to the common-law doctrine of spoliation, the imposition of a sanction may be appropriate where a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence (see Neve v City of New York, 117 AD3d 1006, 1008 [2014]; Rodman v Ardsley Radiology, P.C., 103 AD3d 871, 872 [2013]).

2026II, LLC v Chevron U.S.A., Inc. , 206 AD3d 793, 794 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3126).

2026II, LLC v Chevron U.S.A., Inc. , 206 AD3d 793, 794 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3126; N.H.R. v Deer Park Union Free Sch.

2013In addition, CEI failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on its claim of spoliation of evidence. “ ‘Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the nonresponsible party of the ability to prove its claim, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading’ ” (Shay v Mozer, Inc., 80 AD3d 687, 688 [2011], quoting Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d 566, 567 [2010]).

2013In addition, CEI failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on its claim of spoliation of evidence. “ ‘Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the nonresponsible party of the ability to prove its claim, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading’ ” (Shay v Mozer, Inc., 80 AD3d 687, 688 [2011], quoting Gotto v Eusebe-Carter, 69 AD3d 566, 567 [2010]).

2024"Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence" ( see Morales v City of New York , 130 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2015] citing CPLR § 3126 ; Neve v City of New York , 117 AD3d 1006 [2d Dept 2014]; Samaroo v Bogopa Serv.

2024"Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence" ( see Morales v City of New York , 130 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2015] citing CPLR § 3126 ; Neve v City of New York , 117 AD3d 1006 [2d Dept 2014]; Samaroo v Bogopa Serv.

2024"Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence" ( see Morales v City of New York , 130 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2015] citing CPLR § 3126 ; Neve v City of New York , 117 AD3d 1006 [2d Dept 2014]; Samaroo v Bogopa Serv.

2024"Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence" ( see Morales v City of New York , 130 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2015] citing CPLR § 3126 ; Neve v City of New York , 117 AD3d 1006 [2d Dept 2014]; Samaroo v Bogopa Serv.

2025Auth., 174 AD3d 784 , 786 [2nd Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) "A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show [1] that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, [2] that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and [3] that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense." (Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A., 26 NY3d 543, 547 [2015]

2021Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 157 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2018] [a pipe containing asbestos]; Maiorano v JPMorgan Chase & Co. , 124 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015] [surveillance videos]; Malouf v Equinox Holdings, Inc. , 113 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2014] [a treadmill]; Harry Weiss, Inc. v Moskowitz , 106 AD3d 668, 669 [1st Dept 2013] [a computer]; [*3] Vasquez v Soriano , 106 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2013] [a plastic covering]; Gilchrist v City of New York , 104 AD3d 425 , 426 [1st Dept 2013] [a chair]; VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. , 93 AD3d 33, 41 [1st Dept 2012] [electronic evidence

2025Realty Mgt., Inc. , 64 AD3d 627, 629 ; see Barnaman v Bishop Hucles Episcopal Nursing Home , 213 AD3d 896, 899 ).

2025Realty Mgt., Inc. , 64 AD3d 627, 629 ; see Barnaman v Bishop Hucles Episcopal Nursing Home , 213 AD3d 896, 899 ).

2016“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may *846 be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; see CPLR 3126; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]; Biniachvili v Yeshivat Shaare Torah, Inc., 120 AD3d 605, 606 [2014]).

2016“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; see CPLR 3126; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 845-846 [2016]; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]; Biniachvili v Yeshivat Shaare Torah, Inc., 120 AD3d 605, 606 [2014]).

2016“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may *846 be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; see CPLR 3126; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]; Biniachvili v Yeshivat Shaare Torah, Inc., 120 AD3d 605, 606 [2014]).

2016“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; see CPLR 3126; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 845-846 [2016]; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]; Biniachvili v Yeshivat Shaare Torah, Inc., 120 AD3d 605, 606 [2014]).

2025"Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126" ( Garcia v Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. , 196 AD3d 676, 679 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2022Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its [*2]discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to impose sanctions against the Best Market defendants for spoliation of evidence. "'Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126'" ( Garcia v Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. , 196 AD3d 676 , 679, quoting Sanders v 210 N. 12th St., LLC , 171 AD3d 966 , 968 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2026Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declined to strike the answers of the City defendants and of HHC based on their alleged failure to comply with discovery demands and court-ordered discovery.</p> <p>The Supreme Court also properly declined to strike the answers of the City defendants and of HHC for spoliation of evidence. "[U]nder the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby preventing the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of

2022Similarly, "under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby [preventing] the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading" ( May v American Multi-Cinema, Inc. , 191 AD3d 657, 658 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 157 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2018] [a pipe containing asbestos]; Maiorano v JPMorgan Chase & Co. , 124 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015] [surveillance videos]; Malouf v Equinox Holdings, Inc. , 113 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2014] [a treadmill]; Harry Weiss, Inc. v Moskowitz , 106 AD3d 668, 669 [1st Dept 2013] [a computer]; [*3] Vasquez v Soriano , 106 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2013] [a plastic covering]; Gilchrist v City of New York , 104 AD3d 425 , 426 [1st Dept 2013] [a chair]; VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. , 93 AD3d 33, 41 [1st Dept 2012] [electronic evidence

2021Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 157 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2018] [a pipe containing asbestos]; Maiorano v JPMorgan Chase & Co. , 124 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015] [surveillance videos]; Malouf v Equinox Holdings, Inc. , 113 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2014] [a treadmill]; Harry Weiss, Inc. v Moskowitz , 106 AD3d 668, 669 [1st Dept 2013] [a computer]; [*3] Vasquez v Soriano , 106 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2013] [a plastic covering]; Gilchrist v City of New York , 104 AD3d 425 , 426 [1st Dept 2013] [a chair]; VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. , 93 AD3d 33, 41 [1st Dept 2012] [electronic evidence

2017Moreover, the proposed causes of action alleging spoliation and impairment of the right to sue are devoid of merit because New York does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort (see Ortega v City of New York, 9 NY3d 69, 83 [2007]), and the impairment of the right to sue claim is a mere restatement of the spoliation claim with a different name.

2015Turning to the cross appeal, we find no error in Supreme Court’s determination to treat the spoliation claim as a request for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, inasmuch as the Court of Appeals has specifically “decline [d] to recognize spoliation of *1081 evidence as an independent tort claim” (Ortega v City of New York, 9 NY3d 69, 83 [2007]).

2017Foods, Inc., 142 AD3d 520, 524 [2016]; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 845-846 [2016]; Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]).

2016“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; see CPLR 3126; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 845-846 [2016]; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]; Biniachvili v Yeshivat Shaare Torah, Inc., 120 AD3d 605, 606 [2014]).

2016“The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to prove its claim or defense” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d at 793 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lentini v Weschler, 120 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2014]). “[T]he Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” and may, “under appropriate circumstances, impose a sanction even if the destruction occurred through negligence rathe

2016“The *525 party requesting sanctions for spoilation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to prove its claim or defense” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d at 793 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d at 846 ; Lentini v Weschler, 120 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2014]). “ ‘The nature and severity of the sanction depends upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the knowledge and intent of the spoliator, the existence of proof of an exp

2014“Where a party did not discard crucial evidence in an effort to frustrate discovery, and cannot be presumed to be responsible for the disappearance of such evidence, spoliation sanctions are inappropriate” (Cordero v Mirecle Cab Corp., 51 AD3d 707, 709 [2008]; see Shay v Mozer, Inc., 80 AD3d 687, 688 [2011]).

2011However, “[w]here a party did not discard crucial evidence in an effort to. frustrate discovery, and cannot be presumed to be responsible for the disappearance of such evidence, spoliation sanctions are inappropriate” (Cordero v Mirecle Cab Corp., 51 AD3d 707, 709 [2008]; see O'Reilly v Yavorskiy, 300 AD2d 456, 457 [2002]).

2024Francis Preparatory Sch. , 219 AD3d 1399 , 1401 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sanders v 210 N. 12th St., LLC , 171 AD3d 966 , 968; Peters v Hernandez , 142 AD3d 980, 980 ).

2018The Third-Party Claims Spoliation "Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence" ( Morales v City of New York , 130 AD3d 792, 793 ; see Peters v Hernandez , 142 AD3d 980, 980 ; Cioffi v S.M Foods, Inc ., 142 AD3d 520, 524 ,).

2018The Third-Party Claims Spoliation "Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence" ( Morales v City of New York , 130 AD3d 792, 793 ; see Peters v Hernandez , 142 AD3d 980, 980 ; Cioffi v S.M Foods, Inc ., 142 AD3d 520, 524 ,).

2017Foods, Inc., 142 AD3d 520, 524 [2016]; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 845-846 [2016]; Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]; Eremina v Scparta, 120 AD3d 616, 617 [2014]).