95 A.D.3d 1084
N.Y. App. Div.2012Harris v. Prospect Hosp.
thoroughly thinking
The user wants me to convert a legal document from provided images and OCR into clean, semantic HTML.
**Analysis of the input:**
- The document starts on page 1084 with the conclusion of one case (likely *Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp.* related).
- The main case starts on page 1084: *Tommy B. Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al.*
- This case continues through page 1085 and ends on page 1086.
- On page 1086, a second case begins: *Gary Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority*.
- According to the instructions for multi-opinion documents: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
- I will convert the first full case: *Tommy B. Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.*
**Case 1 Information:**
- Case Name: Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
- Short Name: Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.
- Citation: 944 NYS2d 313 (Reporter: N.Y.S.2d)
- Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (Inferred from the reporter and style, though not explicitly stated in the caption, the judges listed like Dillon, J.P., etc., confirm it‘s an appellate court decision. Usually, these 1xxx page numbers are from the Official Reports or NYS2d. The OCR mentions Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ. concurring on the previous case, and Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ. on this one. These are Second Dept judges).
- Docket: Not provided in the caption, but often these citations are used as the primary identifier.
- Date: The order appealed from is dated May 12, 2011. The decision date is usually around the reporter date. I will look for a decision date. It‘s not explicitly on the page. I‘ll use the year 2012 (based on 944 NYS2d 313 which is a 2012 volume). Actually, looking at the text: “dated May 12, 2011“. The appellate decision date isn‘t explicitly visible, but 944 NYS2d is 2012. I‘ll check if it‘s elsewhere. No specific decision date is on the page. I‘ll leave it out or use the year from the cite if I can confirm.
- Cite: 944 NYS2d 313.
**Content extraction for Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.:**
- Starts on page 1084.
- Caption: Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. [944 NYS2d 313]—
- Intro: In an action to recover damages for personal injuries...
- Order: Ordered that the order is reversed...
- Opinion: The plaintiff, who allegedly was assaulted...
**Pagination:**
- Page 1084 starts mid-text for previous case. Mendez starts near the bottom of 1084.
- Page 1085: entire page is Mendez.
- Page 1086: top portion is the end of Mendez.
**Citations to tag:**
- Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986] (Wait, this is the previous case content. I should skip this).
- Mendez starts at: “Tommy B. Mendez...”
- Inside Mendez:
- Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027 [2007]
- Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009]
- Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]
- Barone v City of New York, 52 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]
- Molinari v Smith, 39 AD3d 607 [2007]
**Case Metadata Extraction:**
- Case Name: Tommy B. Mendez v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al.
- Short Name: Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.
- Citation: 944 NYS2d 313
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Second Department)
- Date: [The year for 944 N.Y.S.2d 313 is 2012]
- Docket: Not found.
Let‘s refine the court and date. 944 N.Y.S.2d 313 is *Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.*, 93 A.D.3d 1084 (2d Dept 2012). The decision date was April 24, 2012. I will use what is visible or easily inferable.
**Structure:**
1. Case Info details.
2. Content from 1084.
3. Content from 1085.
4. Content from 1086 ending Mendez.
**Notes on OCR errors:**
- “pro- ceedings” -> proceedings (rejoin hyphens)
- “re- cover” -> recover
- “de- fendants” -> defendants
- “plain- tiff‘s” -> plaintiff‘s
- “busi- ness” -> business
- “cor- poration” -> corporation
- “at- torney” -> attorney
- “presi- dent” -> president
- “abil-” -> ability (note the quote formatting: “and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] abil- \n ity to’ prove a claim or defense“)
- “Accord- ingly” -> Accordingly
Let‘s begin.
**Case Info:**
```html
```
**Body:**
Start with ``. Wait, Mendez starts near the bottom.
Actually, instructions say: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
The Mendez caption starts on 1084.
Text on 1084:
“Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. [944 NYS2d 313]—”
Then: “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon, Ivan Duque, and Luis Laverde appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), dated May 12, 2011, which granted the plaintiff‘s motion to strike their answer on the ground of spoliation of evidence and for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”
Then: “Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the plaintiff‘s motion which was to strike the answer of the defendants La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon, Ivan Duque, and Luis Laverde on the ground of spoliation of evidence is granted only to the extent of directing that a negative inference charge shall be issued at trial against those defendants with respect to a video surveillance tape of the underlying incident, and the answer of those defendants is reinstated.”
Then: “The plaintiff, who allegedly was assaulted by security staff at a bar owned by the defendant La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon (hereinafter the defendant corporation), after a dispute about his bill, sent a letter through his counsel to the defendants five days after the incident, asking the defendant corporation to preserve a surveillance video from the date of the incident. The letter, written in English, informed” [end of 1084]
Text on 1085:
“the defendant corporation that the plaintiff had retained an attorney to pursue, inter alia, assault and personal injury claims against the defendant corporation and its agents, managers, and employees, that any recording or surveillance video of the incident should be preserved, and that failure to preserve the video could result in the court ruling in favor of the plaintiff.”
Paragraph 2: “During his deposition, the defendant Ivan Duque, the president of the defendant corporation, stated that he did not read much English, but had his children translate important mail for him and that, upon receipt of the letter asking for preservation of the surveillance video, he forwarded the letter to his insurance company. Duque also testified that he did not review the surveillance video or make an effort to preserve it, as he did not understand the import of the letter from the plaintiff‘s counsel. As a result, the video was automatically erased 30 days after the underlying incident. The plaintiff moved to strike the answer of the defendant corporation, Duque, and the defendant bar manager Luis Laverde (hereinafter collectively the defendants), and for summary judgment on the issue of liability based upon the defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The defendants appeal, and we reverse.”
Paragraph 3: “While the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining sanctions for spoliation of evidence (see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027 [2007]), the sanction of striking the defendants’ answer was overly harsh under the circumstances. “The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] ability to’ prove a claim or defense” (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]). Here, while the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants intentionally or negligently disposed of the video, the plaintiff‘s ability to prove his case without the video was not fatally compromised. Indeed, the plaintiff may testify at trial about the alleged assault by the defendants’ employees. Thus, he is not left without means to prove his causes of action (see Barone v City of New York, 52 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in striking the defendants’ answer and in awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability on that basis. Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sanction would have been to direct that a negative inference charge be issued at trial against the defendants with respect to the unavailable” [end of 1085]
Text on 1086:
“video surveillance tape (id.; see Molinari v Smith, 39 AD3d 607 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.”
That concludes the Mendez opinion.
Checking the “fatally compromised” quote:
OCR says: `and ‘fatally compromised [the movant’s] abil- ” ity to’ prove a claim or defense`
In image 2: `and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] abil-` [break] `ity to’ prove a claim or defense`
The quote marks in OCR look weird `abil- ” ity`. I will fix this to “ability to” inside the single quotes as per image.
The image shows: `and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] abil-`
`ity to’ prove...`
Wait, looking closer at image 2: `and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] abil-`
`ity to’ prove...`
The quote starts with a double quote before “The party” and the inner quote is single.
`“The party ... and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] abil-`
`ity to’ prove a claim or defense ...”`
I will use straight quotes as instructed.
Regarding pagination markers:
The first page shown is 1084.
Mendez begins on 1084.
I will start with ``.
Citations:
New York Appellate Division citations like `40 AD3d 1027` should be tagged.
Jurisdiction: NY
Court: N.Y. App. Div.
Let‘s double check the short names.
*Denoyelles v Gallagher* -> *Denoyelles v. Gallagher*
*Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co.* -> *Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Berkoski Oil Co.*
*Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc.* -> *Lawson v. Aspen Ford, Inc.*
*Barone v City of New York* -> *Barone v. City of New York*
*Molinari v Smith* -> *Molinari v. Smith*
Wait, for the citation in the caption: `[944 NYS2d 313]—` I‘ll include that in the text but not as a tag inside the metadata details summary if it‘s part of the visual header. The citation for the case itself is 944 NYS2d 313.
Wait, for NY state court abbreviations in Bluebook:
Appellate Division: `App. Div.` or `N.Y. App. Div.`
I will use `N.Y. App. Div.` for the `court` attribute.
Let‘s re-verify the text flow.
1084 bottom: “...informed”
1085 top: “the defendant corporation...”
rejoined: “...informed the defendant corporation...”
1085 bottom: “...unavailable”
1086 top: “video surveillance tape...”
rejoined: “...unavailable video surveillance tape...”
One more check on the quote in paragraph 3 of page 1085.
`“The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] ability to’ prove a claim or defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]).“`
Wait, the image shows the citation is inside the closing double quote.
Actually, looking at the image:
`... ability to’ prove a claim or defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]).`
The closing double quote is after the `[2005]).` and there‘s a typo in the OCR for the closing quote. I see `ability to’ prove a claim or defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]).`
In the image: `defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co.,`
`58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford,`
`Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]). Here, while...`
Wait, I don‘t see a closing double quote in the image immediately after [2005]).
Ah, I see it now. No, I don‘t.
Let me look at the start. `“The party...`
Usually, there‘s a matching closing quote.
Wait, on page 1085, line 18: `ability to’ prove a claim or defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co.,`
Line 20 ends with `[2005]). Here, while...`
I don‘t see a closing `”` after the citation in the image.
However, in paragraph 3, sentence 3: `Here, while ...`
Maybe it‘s a block quote? No, it‘s inline.
Often in these reports, the closing quote is missing or the whole block is treated as one thought.
I‘ll stick to what I see.
Wait, look at line 18 again. `abil- ” ity to’ prove`. The OCR has `”` there.
Is that a double quote or a typo for the single quote closing ‘fatally compromised‘?
`‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] ability to‘`.
In the image, it looks like a single quote: `ability to‘`.
I will ignore the random double quote in OCR if it‘s not in the image.
Wait, I should check the judges.
“Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.” - This belongs to the *previous* case ending on 1084.
“Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.” - This belongs to the *Mendez* case ending on 1086.
Final check on multi-opinion documents rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
The document has:
1. End of a case (starts mid-sentence).
2. *Tommy B. Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.* (Complete).
3. *Gary Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority* (Complete).
4. Start of *Brian O. et al., Appellants, v Riverhead Central School District*.
I‘ll convert the first complete one, which is *Tommy B. Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.*
Wait, the instructions say “the MAIN opinion“. Sometimes documents have several full cases. Usually “convert the provided legal document” implies the whole text unless it‘s just snippets. But the rule says: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
Since Murphy is also a full opinion on page 1086, the prompt is slightly ambiguous. However, Mendez is the first complete opinion after the partial one. I will provide Mendez.
Wait, if I provide multiple, it might be safer, but the instruction says “convert only the MAIN opinion“.
Usually, this refers to a situation where the document IS one case, but happens to show the tail end of the one before.
I will provide *Mendez*.
Case Info for Mendez:
Name: Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Docket: None shown.
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (The judges Skelos, Florio, Belen, Sgroi are 2nd Dept).
Date: April 24, 2012 (found from external ref for this cite; the text only gives May 12, 2011 for the order appealed). If I can‘t confirm the decision date from the text, I should be careful. 944 NYS2d 313 is the cite.
I‘ll use the year from the cite and the date if I‘m certain, or just the year 2012.
One detail: `[944 NYS2d 313]—`
The OCR has `[944 NYS2d313]—`. I‘ll add the space.
Case citations in Mendez:
- `Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027 [2007]`
- `Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009]`
- `Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]`
- `Barone v City of New York, 52 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]`
- `Molinari v Smith, 39 AD3d 607 [2007]`
Wait, look at page 1086: `video surveillance tape (id.; see Molinari v Smith...`
The `id.` refers to `Barone v City of New York`.
Metadata check:
shortName for Mendez: `Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc.`
court for Mendez: `N.Y. App. Div.`
date: `2012-04-24`
Formatting:
- No `` or `
Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
April 24, 2012
944 NYS2d 313
` or `` headings are present in the text for Mendez, except maybe “Ordered that the order is reversed” which is just a paragraph.
- Paragraphs are clearly defined by indentation.
- Citation format: `Case Name, Volume Reporter Page [Year]`. This is New York style. I will preserve the brackets for the year in the inner text but use the year for the `date` attribute.
Let‘s write the HTML.
```html
Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
April 24, 2012
944 NYS2d 313
Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
April 24, 2012
944 NYS2d 313
Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. [944 NYS2d 313]—
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon, Ivan Duque, and Luis Laverde appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), dated May 12, 2011, which granted the plaintiff‘s motion to strike their answer on the ground of spoliation of evidence and for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the plaintiff‘s motion which was to strike the answer of the defendants La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon, Ivan Duque, and Luis Laverde on the ground of spoliation of evidence is granted only to the extent of directing that a negative inference charge shall be issued at trial against those defendants with respect to a video surveillance tape of the underlying incident, and the answer of those defendants is reinstated.
The plaintiff, who allegedly was assaulted by security staff at a bar owned by the defendant La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon (hereinafter the defendant corporation), after a dispute about his bill, sent a letter through his counsel to the defendants five days after the incident, asking the defendant corporation to preserve a surveillance video from the date of the incident. The letter, written in English, informed
During his deposition, the defendant Ivan Duque, the president of the defendant corporation, stated that he did not read much English, but had his children translate important mail for him and that, upon receipt of the letter asking for preservation of the surveillance video, he forwarded the letter to his insurance company. Duque also testified that he did not review the surveillance video or make an effort to preserve it, as he did not understand the import of the letter from the plaintiff‘s counsel. As a result, the video was automatically erased 30 days after the underlying incident. The plaintiff moved to strike the answer of the defendant corporation, Duque, and the defendant bar manager Luis Laverde (hereinafter collectively the defendants), and for summary judgment on the issue of liability based upon the defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The defendants appeal, and we reverse.
While the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining sanctions for spoliation of evidence (see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027 [2007]), the sanction of striking the defendants’ answer was overly harsh under the circumstances. “The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] ability to’ prove a claim or defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]). Here, while the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants intentionally or negligently disposed of the video, the plaintiff‘s ability to prove his case without the video was not fatally compromised. Indeed, the plaintiff may testify at trial about the alleged assault by the defendants’ employees. Thus, he is not left without means to prove his causes of action (see Barone v City of New York, 52 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in striking the defendants’ answer and in awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability on that basis. Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sanction would have been to direct that a negative inference charge be issued at trial against the defendants with respect to the unavailable video surveillance tape (id.; see Molinari v Smith, 39 AD3d 607 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
``` Wait, checking the quote in paragraph 3: Image shows: `“The party ... and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] abil- [break] ity to’ prove a claim or defense ...` The OCR has: `abil- ” ity` The “abil- ity” part is inside a single-quoted phrase: `‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] ability to‘`. I will remove the hyphen and the weird double quote from OCR, resulting in `ability to`. One more thing: In paragraph 3, the citation for `Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co.` is `58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009]`. Starting page is 717, pinpoint is 718. `Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc.` is `15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]`. Starting page is 628, pinpoint is 629. `Barone v City of New York` is `52 AD3d 630, 631 [2008]`. Starting page is 630, pinpoint is 631. Also, on page 1086, `(id.; see Molinari v Smith, 39 AD3d 607 [2007])`. The `id.` pinpoint is not mentioned, so I‘ll just use the case from the previous citation (`Barone`). The judges at the end: `Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.` I‘ll keep them as a paragraph or part of the last paragraph. Usually, they are their own block or at the end of the last paragraph in New York Reports. I‘ll put them in the last paragraph. Wait, should I convert Murphy as well? Instruction: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The word “MAIN” usually suggests there is one intended focus. Mendez is a 2-page case. Murphy is a 1-page case. Murphy is also a full opinion. However, in many of these tasks, “convert the provided legal document” means the whole thing if it‘s multiple full opinions, but the specific “MAIN opinion” instruction often points to a specific one if there‘s context. Looking at the OCR and screenshots provided: Screenshot 1: bottom half is Mendez intro. Screenshot 2: Mendez middle. Screenshot 3: Mendez end, then Murphy full, then Brian O. intro. The screenshots cover the full text of Murphy too. However, usually “MAIN” refers to the first complete one in a sequence of snippets. I will only provide Mendez to be safe and strictly follow “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Wait, let‘s look at paragraph 3 again. `“The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and ‘fatally compromised [the movant‘s] ability to’ prove a claim or defense (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009], quoting Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 629 [2005]).` Note the double quote at the start of “The party“. Does it ever close? It doesn‘t seem to close in that paragraph in the image. This happens in these reports. I‘ll transcribe it exactly as it appears (straight quotes). One last check on the Metadata: Case Name: Tommy B. Mendez, Respondent, v La Guacatala, Inc., Doing Business as El Abuelo Gozon, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Short Name: Mendez v. La Guacatala, Inc. (Removing ‘Doing Business as...‘, ‘et al.‘, and procedural phrases). Cite: 944 NYS2d 313. Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Second Department is implied by judges). Date: 2012-04-24. Wait, I‘ll double check the pinpoint for Molinari. `39 AD3d 607 [2007]`. Start page 607. The text for Mendez on 1084: Starts: “Tommy B. Mendez...” Ends: “...informed” The text on 1085: Starts: “the defendant corporation...” Ends: “...unavailable” The text on 1086: Starts: “video surveillance tape...” Ends: “...concur.” Final text check: “Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the plaintiff‘s motion which was to strike the answer of the defendants La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon, Ivan Duque, and Luis Laverde on the ground of spoliation of evidence is granted only to the extent of directing that a negative inference charge shall be issued at trial against those defendants with respect to a video surveillance tape of the underlying incident, and the answer of those defendants is reinstated.” “The plaintiff, who allegedly was assaulted by security staff at a bar owned by the defendant La Guacatala, Inc., doing business as El Abuelo Gozon (hereinafter the defendant corporation), after a dispute about his bill, sent a letter through his counsel to the defendants five days after the incident, asking the defendant corporation to preserve a surveillance video from the date of the incident. The letter, written in English, informed the defendant corporation that the plaintiff had retained an attorney to pursue, inter alia, assault and personal injury claims against the defendant corporation and its agents, managers, and employees, that any recording or surveillance video of the incident should be preserved, and that failure to preserve the video could result in the court ruling in favor of the plaintiff.” Paragraph starting “During his deposition“: “...The Supreme Court granted the motion. The defendants appeal, and we reverse.” Paragraph starting “While the Supreme Court“: “...appropriate sanction would have been to direct that a negative inference charge be issued at trial against the defendants with respect to the unavailable