History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gonzalez v. City of New York
39 A.D.3d 367
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2007
|
Check Treatment

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered March 14, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for an order to strike defendants’ answer for allegedly spoliating evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to strike defendants’ answer where plaintiff failed to establish that defendants had willfully or contumaciously destroyed records in an effort to frustrate discovery (see Rosen v Corvalon, 309 AD2d 723 [2003]), or that the missing records constituted crucial evidence without which she would be unable to establish a prima facie case (see Tawedros v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y., 281 AD2d 184 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Gonzalez v. City of New York
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Apr 19, 2007
Citation: 39 A.D.3d 367
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.