Tommy Hilfiger, USA, Inc. v. Commonwealth Trucking, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 December 2002 |
| Citation | 751 N.Y.S.2d 446,300 A.D.2d 58 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | TOMMY HILFIGER, USA, INC., et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>COMMONWEALTH TRUCKING, INC., et al., Defendants, and<BR>CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
This action arises out of an alleged hijacking of a shipment container of Tommy Hilfiger wearing apparel from a truck owned and operated by defendant Commonwealth Trucking, Inc. (Commonwealth) at the Conrail facility in Croxton, New Jersey. The shipment, which consisted of three sealed containers, had originated in Indonesia and was en route from California to New York, its final destination. The Croxton facility is surrounded by a fence which is eight feet high topped with razor wire and patrolled by Conrail police officers. Video cameras are strategically placed to monitor and record activity inside the secured facility. These videotapes were routinely changed on a daily basis and held for 14 days prior to their reuse by Conrail's police department.
After the shipment had remained for 11 days at the Croxton facility, Commonwealth sent a truck to pick up the subject container on behalf of Hilfiger. As the driver went to hitch the cab to his truck, he noticed that the container's seal was missing and notified Conrail's police department. After a Conrail police inspection revealed that the container was nearly full, the container was resealed with a Conrail police seal and a Polaroid photograph was taken of the back of the container. The driver then signed for receipt and custody of the container and proceeded to drive through an open gate of an unmanned guard booth. As the cab of the truck passed the gate and came to a stop before entering a public roadway, leaving the 40-foot container inside the gate, the driver was allegedly confronted by three masked men who hijacked the truck. At the time of hijacking, Conrail had four of its video cameras aimed at the unmanned guard booth. After a review of these videotapes, Conrail's police department found them to be of poor quality and lacking any probative value in their investigation since the cameras pointed inward to the facility, not outward where the hijacking occurred. These tapes were not preserved and were subsequently recycled by Conrail. Likewise, Conrail could not locate the Polaroid photograph taken by its police department of the subject container before it was resealed.
Conrail subsequently moved for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melcher v. Apollo Med. Fund Mgmt. L.L.C.
...where the spoliation deprives the plaintiff of the ability to confront a defense ( Tommy Hilfiger, USA v. Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58, 751 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1st Dept. 2002];see Sage Realty, 275 A.D.2d at 18, 713 N.Y.S.2d 155, [striking [959 N.Y.S.2d 140]pleading justified by deliberate......
-
Monell v. Tower W. Livery Ctr.
...of appropriate means to [either present or] confront a claim with incisive evidence'" (Tommy Hilfiger, USA v. Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58, 60 [1st Dept. 2002], quoting DiDomenico v. C&S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 A.D.2d 41, 53 [2nd Dept. 1998], and Squiteri v. City of New York, 248 A.......
-
Suazo v. Linden Plaza Assocs., L.P.
...v. Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 79 A.D.3d 481, 482–483, 913 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1st Dept.2010];Tommy Hilfiger, USA v. Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58, 60, 751 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1st Dept.2002]...
-
Cuevas v. 1738 Assocs., LLC
...sanctions ( see Scansarole v. Madison Sq. Garden, L.P., 33 A.D.3d 517, 518, 827 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2006];Tommy Hilfiger, USA v. Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58, 60, 751 N.Y.S.2d 446 [2002];Christian v. City of New York, 269 A.D.2d 135, 703 N.Y.S.2d 5 [2000] ). We have reviewed the remaining c......