Mylonas v. Town of Brookhaven
| Decision Date | 19 May 2003 |
| Citation | 759 N.Y.S.2d 752,305 A.D.2d 561 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | BRIAN MYLONAS, Appellant-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN et al., Defendants, and<BR>HAMPTON COACH, Respondent-Appellant. |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
On the morning of January 7, 1998, the plaintiff was badly injured when the vehicle he was driving skidded on a wet roadway, hit a telephone pole, and burst into flames. The vehicle involved in the accident was a 1992 Chevrolet Caprice owned by the defendant Hampton Coach, and assigned to the plaintiff, as an independent contractor, for use as a taxicab. Approximately eight months after the accident, the plaintiff commenced this action against, inter alia, Hampton Coach, alleging that the vehicle assigned to him on the day of the accident was mechanically unsound, and that its deficiencies, which included bald tires, had caused the vehicle to skid and prevented him from regaining control over it. It is undisputed that at some point prior to the commencement of this action, Hampton Coach had the vehicle involved in the accident destroyed. All records relating to repair and maintenance of the vehicle were also destroyed. In addition, although photographs of the vehicle were allegedly taken after the accident, these too were apparently lost or destroyed.
The plaintiff subsequently moved, among other things, for summary judgment on the ground of spoliation of evidence, contending that Hampton Coach deliberately had the vehicle and all maintenance records destroyed to prevent him from proving his case. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on this ground, finding that although there were circumstances suggesting that the subject evidence may have been deliberately destroyed, there was no concrete proof that this was the case. However, as a sanction for spoliation, the Supreme Court directed that Hampton Coach be precluded from offering evidence of the condition of the vehicle at trial, and that an adverse inference charge be given against it. The plaintiff and Hampton Coach appeal and cross-appeal, respectively, from this determination.
On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court should have stricken Hampton Coach's answer, either pursuant to CPLR 3126 or the common-law doctrine of spoliation, and awarded him summary judgment based upon the company's intentional destruction of key evidence. We disagree. To impose the drastic remedy of striking a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126, there must be a clear showing that a party's failure to comply with discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Foncette v LA Express, 295 AD2d 471 [2002]; Fellin v Sahgal, 268 AD2d 456 [2000]). Here, while the Supreme Court took note of several factors which raised an inference that Hampton Coach's destruction of the subject evidence and resulting inability to comply with discovery demands were deliberate, there was insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubin v. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP
... ... adverse inference charge at trial for destruction of ... surveillance tape]; Mylonas v Town of Brookhaven, ... 305 A.D.2d 561, 563 [2d Dept 2003] [trial court properly ... precluded ... ...
-
Scordo v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
...in this case, in part because there was other evidence asto the post-accident condition of the car ( see Mylonas v. Town of Brookhaven, 305 A.D.2d 561, 563, 759 N.Y.S.2d 752; Marro v. St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 294 A.D.2d 341, 742 N.Y.S.2d 327; Chiu Ping Chung v. Caravan Coach......
-
Samaroo v. Bogopa Serv. Corp.
...at 886, 900 N.Y.S.2d 101;Weber v. Harley–Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 58 A.D.3d at 722–723, 871 N.Y.S.2d 698;Mylonas v. Town of Brookhaven, 305 A.D.2d 561, 563, 759 N.Y.S.2d 752). A party may not appeal as of right from so much of an order as merely defers disposition of a motion until trial (......
-
Dimitratos v. APW Supermarkets, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 30827(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2/28/2008)
...showing that a party's failure to comply with discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith." Mylonas v. Town of Brookhaven, 305 A.D.2d 561, 562-563 (2nd Dept. 2003). No such showing was made in the instant Here, Walbaums' witness, Ms. Whiting, testified at her deposition tha......