Schimicci v. Dermpath, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schimicci v. Dermpath, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 626, 852 N.Y.2d 779

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 626 (Schimicci v. Dermpath, 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

Schimicci v. Dermpath, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 626, 852 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint on the ground of spoliation of evidence based on the plaintiffs negligent failure to preserve key pieces of evidence which, in light of the nature of the claims asserted, were crucial to the defense of this matter (see Lichtenstein v [627]*627Fantastic Mdse. Corp., 46 AD3d 762 [2007]; Horace Mann Ins. Co. v E.T. Appliances, 290 AD2d 418 [2002]; Behrbom v Healthco Intl., 285 AD2d 573 [2001]; Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201 [1998]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint on the ground of spoliation of evidence based on the plaintiffs negligent failure to preserve key pieces of evidence which, in light of the nature of the claims asserted, were crucial to the defense of this matter (see Lichtenstein v [627]*627Fantastic Mdse. Corp., 46 AD3d 762 [2007]; Horace Mann Ins. Co. v E.T. Appliances, 290 AD2d 418 [2002]; Behrbom v Healthco Intl., 285 AD2d 573 [2001]; Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201 [1998]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 626, 852 N.Y.2d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schimicci-v-dermpath-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack