Diaz v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. Rose

37 A.D.3d 233, 829 N.Y.S.2d 494

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 233 (Diaz v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diaz v. Rose, 37 A.D.3d 233, 829 N.Y.S.2d 494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 1, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendant Medical Center’s answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the answer reinstated.

Although the Medical Center’s failure to retain the object removed from plaintiffs decedent’s shoulder will render it more difficult to establish whether that object was one of the suture anchors used to repair the patient’s rotator cuff in March 2001, or was instead a drill tip improperly left there during the surgery, the relief granted by the motion court was nevertheless more punitive than was warranted under the circumstances (see Northway Eng’g v Felix Indus., 77 NY2d 332, 337 [1991]). The Medical Center’s failure was not established to have resulted from the intentional spoliation of evidence such as would warrant the sanction of striking its answer. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 1, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendant Medical Center’s answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the answer reinstated.

Although the Medical Center’s failure to retain the object removed from plaintiffs decedent’s shoulder will render it more difficult to establish whether that object was one of the suture anchors used to repair the patient’s rotator cuff in March 2001, or was instead a drill tip improperly left there during the surgery, the relief granted by the motion court was nevertheless more punitive than was warranted under the circumstances (see Northway Eng’g v Felix Indus., 77 NY2d 332, 337 [1991]). The Medical Center’s failure was not established to have resulted from the intentional spoliation of evidence such as would warrant the sanction of striking its answer. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 233, 829 N.Y.S.2d 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-rose-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack