Gomez v. Metro Terminals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. Metro Terminals Corp.

279 A.D.2d 550, 719 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated June 21, 1999, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint or preclude the introduction of evidence on the ground that the plaintiff had lost certain magnetic resonance imaging films.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion. The appellants did not show that the plaintiff’s loss of certain magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) films was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; cf., Birch Hill Farm v Reed, 272 AD2d 282). Moreover, the appellants’ spoliation claims were unsupported by any proof establishing that the missing MRI films were of any significance (cf., DiDomenico v C&S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 AD2d 41). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated June 21, 1999, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint or preclude the introduction of evidence on the ground that the plaintiff had lost certain magnetic resonance imaging films.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion. The appellants did not show that the plaintiff’s loss of certain magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) films was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; cf., Birch Hill Farm v Reed, 272 AD2d 282). Moreover, the appellants’ spoliation claims were unsupported by any proof establishing that the missing MRI films were of any significance (cf., DiDomenico v C&S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 AD2d 41). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Gomez v. Metro Terminals Corp., 279 A.D.2d 550, 719 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

279 A.D.2d 550 (Gomez v. Metro Terminals Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related