Dzidowska v. Related Cos., L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dzidowska v. Related Cos., L.P.

2017 NY Slip Op 1810, 148 A.D.3d 480, 49 N.Y.S.3d 125

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

Docket3378 452293/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1810 (Dzidowska v. Related Cos., L.P.) 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

Dzidowska v. Related Cos., L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 1810, 148 A.D.3d 480, 49 N.Y.S.3d 125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered January 11, 2016, which to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against defendants-appellants, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion to sanction plaintiff’s counsel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against the Related Companies, L.P. (Related) and 1616 First Company, LLC (First), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly concluded that appellants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s counsel violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, CPLR 3101 and 3120 or 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), warranting sanctions, based on alleged conduct of an investigator.

However, the court properly sanctioned appellants for spoliation of certain videotapes, which they were notified by plaintiff’s counsel to preserve, within days of the accident. Despite this notice, appellants preserved copies of only limited portions of the surveillance tape from one camera and destroyed the footage for the entire relevant period from another camera located in the elevator. Plaintiff showed that the portions of the tape that were recorded over were relevant to whether defendants had notice of elevator malfunctions prior to her accident. The court properly concluded that defendants’ culpable state of mind was evidenced by their failure to comply with plaintiff’s request to preserve this evidence (see VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 AD3d 33, 45 [1st Dept 2012]).

*481 Related and First failed to establish that they did not own, manage or maintain the building. Their reliance largely on unidentified documents not before the court is insufficient to meet their burden on summary judgment.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered January 11, 2016, which to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against defendants-appellants, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion to sanction plaintiff’s counsel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against the Related Companies, L.P. (Related) and 1616 First Company, LLC (First), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly concluded that appellants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s counsel violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, CPLR 3101 and 3120 or 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), warranting sanctions, based on alleged conduct of an investigator.

However, the court properly sanctioned appellants for spoliation of certain videotapes, which they were notified by plaintiff’s counsel to preserve, within days of the accident. Despite this notice, appellants preserved copies of only limited portions of the surveillance tape from one camera and destroyed the footage for the entire relevant period from another camera located in the elevator. Plaintiff showed that the portions of the tape that were recorded over were relevant to whether defendants had notice of elevator malfunctions prior to her accident. The court properly concluded that defendants’ culpable state of mind was evidenced by their failure to comply with plaintiff’s request to preserve this evidence (see VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 AD3d 33, 45 [1st Dept 2012]).

*481 Related and First failed to establish that they did not own, manage or maintain the building. Their reliance largely on unidentified documents not before the court is insufficient to meet their burden on summary judgment.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1810, 148 A.D.3d 480, 49 N.Y.S.3d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dzidowska-v-related-cos-lp-nyappdiv-2017.