Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.green2 sentences2014In Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC (220 FRD 212, 218 [SD NY 2003]), the federal district court held that “[o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.” In VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. ( 93 AD3d 33, 45 [1st Dept 2012]), we adopted the Zubulake standard for preservation and held that “[a] party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must demonstrate: (1) that the party with control over the evidence had an obli 2014In Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC (220 FRD 212, 218 [SD NY 2003]), the federal district court held that “[o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.” In VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. ( 93 AD3d 33, 45 [1st Dept 2012]), we adopted the Zubulake standard for preservation and held that “[a] party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must demonstrate: (1) that the party with control over the evidence had an obli | 2 | 4 |
Samaroo v. Bogopa Service Corp.green2 sentences2014Corp., 106 AD3d 713, 714 [2d Dept 2013]). 2014Corp., 106 AD3d 713, 714 [2d Dept 2013]). | 2 | 2 |
Wiseman v. American Motors Sales Corp.green2 sentences2012Finally, the adoption of the Zubulake standard is consistent with the long-standing rule in New York that the expenses incurred in connection with disclosure are to be paid by the respective producing parties and said expenses may be taxed as disbursements by the prevailing litigant (see Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 241 [1984]; see also Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3108:5, at 379; C3103:5, at 301 [1970 ed]). 2012Finally, the adoption of the Zubulake standard is consistent with the long-standing rule in New York that the expenses incurred in connection with disclosure are to be paid by the respective producing parties and said expenses may be taxed as disbursements by the prevailing litigant (see Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 241 [1984]; see also Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3108:5, at 379; C3103:5, at 301 [1970 ed]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ahroner v. Israel Discount Bank
green
2 sentences2012Just recently in Ahroner v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y. ( 79 AD3d 481 [2010]), this Court adopted the Zubulake standard when reviewing a motion for spoliation sanctions involving the destruction of electronic evidence. 2012Just recently in Ahroner v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y. ( 79 AD3d 481 [2010]), this Court adopted the Zubulake standard when reviewing a motion for spoliation sanctions involving the destruction of electronic evidence. | 3 | 2012–2013 |
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Funding, Inc., 94 AD3d 58 [1st Dept 2012]; VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 AD3d 33 [1st Dept 2012]; Ahroner v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 79 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2010]). 2013Funding, Inc., 94 AD3d 58 [1st Dept 2012]; VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 AD3d 33 [1st Dept 2012]; Ahroner v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 79 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2010]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |