E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v. S.A.F. La Sala Corp.
Decision Date | 16 January 2007 |
Docket Number | 2005-08929.,2005-11711. |
Parties | E.W. HOWELL CO., INC., Appellant, v. S.A.F. LA SALA CORP., Respondent, and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
"Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some [other] reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" (Carrillo v PM Realty Group, 16 AD3d 611 [2005]; see Matter of Hoey-Kennedy v Kennedy, 294 AD2d 573 [2002]; Long v Long, 251 AD2d 631 [1998]). Contrary to the appellants' contention, the defendant S.A.F. La Sala Corp. (hereinafter the defendant) demonstrated in its moving papers that the court had misapprehended certain facts pertaining to the significance of missing business records in granting the motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and cross claims as a sanction for spoliation of evidence. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to reargue.
Upon reargument, the court properly vacated the order entered March 14, 2005 and determined that a less severe sanction was appropriate. In order 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 Pulsone v North Shore Towers Apts. Inc., 29 AD3d 883 [2006]; Pepsico, Inc. v Winterthur Intl. Am. Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 742 [2005]; Assael v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 443 [2004]; Mylonas v Town of Brookhaven, 305 AD2d 561 [2003]). Here, the appellants failed to make such a showing.
Furthermore, while the sanction of dismissal of a pleading may be imposed upon a party who negligently loses key evidence even absent willful or contumacious conduct (see Mylonas v Town of Brookhaven, supra; DiDomenico v C & S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 AD2d 41, 53 [1998]), a less drastic sanction is appropriate where the loss does not deprive the opposing party of the means of establishing a claim or a defense (see De Los Santos v Polanco, 21 AD3d 397 [2005]; Iannucci v Rose, 8 AD3d 437 [2004]; Marro v St. Vincent's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Joseph v. Desroches, Joseph & Scott, M.D., P.C., 2008 NY Slip Op 33333(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/19/2008)
...22 A.D.3d 643, 643-644 (2nd Dept. 2005); See, also, Chrostowski v. Chow, 37 A.D.3d 638 (2nd Dept. 2007); E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v. S.A.F. La Sala Corp., 36 A.D.3d 653 (2nd Dept. 2007); Shapiro v. Kurtzman, 32 A.D.3d 508 (2nd Dept. 2006); Assael v Metropolitan Transit Authority, 4 A.D.3d 443 ......
-
Bessa v. Anflo Indus., Inc.
...860 [2d Dep't 2010] ; Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 670, 883 N.Y.S.2d 573 [2d Dep't 2009] ; E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v. S.A.F. La Sala Corp., 36 A.D.3d 653, 654, 828 N.Y.S.2d 212 [2d Dep't 2007].) Additionally, motions for reargument are controlled by CPLR § 2221(d) which states in pertinen......
-
Choinski v. Bank of New York Lease Servicing, 2008 NY Slip Op 31969(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/9/2008)
... ... BANK OF NEW YORK, INC. s/h/a BANK OF NEW YORK LEASING SERVICING, ... AMERICAN SCAFFOLDING CORP., Second Third-Party Defendant ... AMERICAN ... 2007); E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v. S.A.F. La Sala Corp., 36 A.D.3d 653 ... ...
-
Vaccariello v. Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc.
...at its earlier decision" (Ito v. 324 E. 9th St. Corp., 49 A.D.3d 816, 817, 857 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; see E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v. S.A.F. La Sala Corp., 36 A.D.3d 653, 654, 828 N.Y.S.2d 212 ; Carillo v. PM Realty Group, 16 A.D.3d 611, 793 N.Y.S.2d 69 ; see also CPLR 2221[d][2] ). Here, the Supreme ......