Short v. Bombardier Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Short v. Bombardier Inc.

269 A.D.2d 522, 704 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 522 (Short v. Bombardier 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

Short v. Bombardier Inc., 269 A.D.2d 522, 704 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated October 29, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to strike the complaint as a sanction for failing to preserve evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the plaintiffs complaint as á sanction for'his failure to preserve evidence crucial to the defense of the case (see, Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201; Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170; Abar v Freightliner Corp., 208 AD2d 999). Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, 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, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated October 29, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to strike the complaint as a sanction for failing to preserve evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the plaintiffs complaint as á sanction for'his failure to preserve evidence crucial to the defense of the case (see, Squitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201; Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170; Abar v Freightliner Corp., 208 AD2d 999). Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 522, 704 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-bombardier-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack