Cohen v. Jordan Services, Inc.
49 A.D.3d 680, 852 N.Y.2d 851
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
[681]*681The plaintiff failed to conclusively establish that the evidence was willfully destroyed or discarded in order to frustrate her interests. Accordingly, the extreme sanction of preclusion is not warranted (see Vaughn v City of New York, 201 AD2d 556, 558 [1994]).
In view of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cohen v. Jordan Services, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 680, 852 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).
49 A.D.3d 680 (Cohen v. Jordan Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lipco Electrical Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp.
117 A.D.3d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Berkoski Oil Co.
58 A.D.3d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Scarano v. Bribitzer
56 A.D.2d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)