Gonzalez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. City of New York

39 A.D.3d 367, 832 N.Y.S.2d 436

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

DecidedApril 19, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 367 (Gonzalez v. City of New York) 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

Gonzalez v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 367, 832 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered March 14, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for an order to strike defendants’ answer for allegedly spoliating evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to strike defendants’ answer where plaintiff failed to establish that defendants had willfully or contumaciously destroyed records in an effort to frustrate discovery (see Rosen v Corvalon, 309 AD2d 723 [2003]), or that the missing records constituted crucial evidence without which she would be unable to establish a prima facie case (see Tawedros v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y., 281 AD2d 184 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered March 14, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for an order to strike defendants’ answer for allegedly spoliating evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to strike defendants’ answer where plaintiff failed to establish that defendants had willfully or contumaciously destroyed records in an effort to frustrate discovery (see Rosen v Corvalon, 309 AD2d 723 [2003]), or that the missing records constituted crucial evidence without which she would be unable to establish a prima facie case (see Tawedros v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y., 281 AD2d 184 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 367, 832 N.Y.S.2d 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack