Hoffman v. Medical Depot, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Medical Depot, Inc.

142 A.D.3d 641, 36 N.Y.S.3d 825

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2016

Docket2015-10674

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 641 (Hoffman v. Medical Depot, 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

Hoffman v. Medical Depot, Inc., 142 A.D.3d 641, 36 N.Y.S.3d 825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries based on products liability, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brand-veen, J.), entered August 26, 2015, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant All Pro Medical Supplies, Inc., without prejudice to renew.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of the appropriate sanction for spoliation is within the broad discretion of the court” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 794 [2015]; see Samaroo v Bogopa Serv. Corp., 106 AD3d 713, 714 [2013]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant All Pro Medical Supplies, Inc., for spoliation of evidence without prejudice to renew since they failed to establish that, at this point in the litigation, they have been left without a means to establish their case (see Morales v City *642 of New York, 130 AD3d at 794; Neve v City of New York, 117 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2014]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d at 719; De Los Santos v Polanco, 21 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]; Iannucci v Rose, 8 AD3d 437, 438 [2004]).

Hall, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries based on products liability, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brand-veen, J.), entered August 26, 2015, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant All Pro Medical Supplies, Inc., without prejudice to renew.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of the appropriate sanction for spoliation is within the broad discretion of the court” (Morales v City of New York, 130 AD3d 792, 794 [2015]; see Samaroo v Bogopa Serv. Corp., 106 AD3d 713, 714 [2013]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d 717, 718 [2009]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant All Pro Medical Supplies, Inc., for spoliation of evidence without prejudice to renew since they failed to establish that, at this point in the litigation, they have been left without a means to establish their case (see Morales v City *642 of New York, 130 AD3d at 794; Neve v City of New York, 117 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2014]; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Berkoski Oil Co., 58 AD3d at 719; De Los Santos v Polanco, 21 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]; Iannucci v Rose, 8 AD3d 437, 438 [2004]).

Hall, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 641, 36 N.Y.S.3d 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-medical-depot-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack