Evers v. Macy's Northeast, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evers v. Macy's Northeast, Inc.

295 A.D.2d 312, 743 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5735

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 312 (Evers v. Macy's Northeast, Inc.) 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

Evers v. Macy's Northeast, Inc., 295 A.D.2d 312, 743 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated June 28, 2001, which granted her motion to strike the defendants’ answers only to the extent of precluding each defendant from testifying or presenting any direct evidence with respect to certain items she demanded during discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The sanction imposed by the Supreme Court constituted a provident exercise of its discretion. The plaintiff failed to show that the defendants acted intentionally or in bad faith in discarding evidence, or that she was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence. Under these circumstances, striking the defendants’ answers would have been inappropriate (see Knightner v Custom Window & Door Prods., 289 AD2d 455). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated June 28, 2001, which granted her motion to strike the defendants’ answers only to the extent of precluding each defendant from testifying or presenting any direct evidence with respect to certain items she demanded during discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The sanction imposed by the Supreme Court constituted a provident exercise of its discretion. The plaintiff failed to show that the defendants acted intentionally or in bad faith in discarding evidence, or that she was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence. Under these circumstances, striking the defendants’ answers would have been inappropriate (see Knightner v Custom Window & Door Prods., 289 AD2d 455). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 312, 743 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evers-v-macys-northeast-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack