Source: http://barnespc.com/news-converting-fifth-amendment-invocation-negative-inference.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:25:11+00:00

Document:
Last month we addressed the transformation of a criminal court plea or guilty verdict into civil court liability, relying upon collateral estoppel. This month we take a step back. Assume that the civil case is in the midst of discovery, the corresponding criminal case is also still pending prior to plea or verdict, and that the adverse party’s deposition yields a slew of Fifth Amendment invocations. There is opportunity, once again, to turn the lemons into lemonade by convincing the Court that the Fifth Amendment invocation warrants a negative inference which may advance the likelihood of achieving judgment on liability.
In a perfect world, each crime would be documented like a CSI episode. The Appellate Division, mindful that a typical defendant will not verify the details of her criminal wrongdoing, mandates that a trial Court take a common sense view of the evidence and avoid a Pollyanna perspective on the nature of criminal matters generally, especially in light of the Fifth Amendment obstacle.
In this regard, at the summary judgment stage of civil proceedings, the Court is required to bear in mind that that a litigant’s Fifth Amendment invocation is a two-fold strategy: first it hopes to avoid criminal consequences and second, it is a simultaneous barrier to the production of testimony which is fatal to her civil defense.
From the assertion of the privilege you may infer, if you deem it proper to do so, that had the answers been given they would not have contradicted the opposing evidence on the issue of [identify issue] or would not have supported (the defendant's, plaintiff's) position on that issue and you may, although you are not required to, draw the strongest inference against the (plaintiff, defendant) on that question that the opposing evidence permits [emphasis added].
But the heavy lifting is not complete upon the Fifth Amendment invocation because the adverse inference may not be the sole basis for liability.10 At that point, the movant still bears the burden of laying bear the proof warranting summary judgment sufficient to convince the court that the same, in light of the application of the negative inference, is appropriate. Movant’s counsel must bear in mind that the typical admissions gathered at a party deposition will not exist in light of the Fifth Amendment obstacle. However, movant’s presentation of all other indicia of wrongdoing, even if purely circumstantial, may nonetheless be characterized by the Court as compelling, and sufficient to warrant summary judgment.
Counsel will be faced with obstacles in the vast majority of highly contested litigations; tenacious attorneys will nonetheless achieve success by identifying a viable strategy no matter the legal dilemma. The interaction between civil and criminal proceedings may reveal challenging circumstances, but with the proper legal strategy designed to address those unique challenges, success in the civil arena can be achieved.
1 United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 761, 103 S.Ct. 1548 (1983) (“the claim of privilege is not a substitute for relevant evidence”). See also United States v. Taylor, 975 F.2d 402, at 404 (7th Cir. 1992).
2 State of New York v. Carey Resources, 97 A.D.2d 508, 509, 467 N.Y.S.2d 876 (2nd Dep’t 1983). See also Stuart v. Tomasino, 148 A.D.2d 370, 373, 539 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1st Dep’t 1989).
3 24 N.Y.2d 354, at 365 (1969) re-argument denied, 24 N.Y.2d 1038 (1969).
4 Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, at 83-84, 90 S.Ct. 1893 (1893).
5 Republic of Haiti v. Duvalier, 211 A.D.2d 379, at 385-386, 626 N.Y.S.2d 472, at 476 (1st Dep’t 1995).
7 Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co., Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 31, at 42-43 (1980).
8 SEC v. Susman, 2010 WL 532060, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2010) (internal citation omitted); see also Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Int's Fin. Servs., 323 F.Supp.2d 482, 505 (S.D.N.Y.2004)(“because Robinson [defendant] asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege ... at his deposition, in evaluating the Commission's [plaintiff] evidence, the court may draw an adverse inferences from his silence.”).
9 LiButti v. United States, 178 F.3d 114, 120 (2nd Cir. 1999).
10 See In re Jacobs, 394 B.R. 646, at 663 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.