Meyers v. GreenbergMeyers v. Greenberg
Moreover, at this time, the plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that Tabor intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence that compromised her ability to prosecute her claim (see Scordo v Costco Wholesale Corp., 77 AD3d 725, 727 [2010]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have conditionally granted that branch of the plaintiff‘s motion which was to strike Tabor‘s answer, and thereafter should not have stricken her answer.
The appeal by the defendants Stephen T. Greenberg and Stephen T. Greenberg, M.D., P.C., from the order entered February 15, 2011, must be dismissed, as those defendants are not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see
MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.