Court Opinion

ID: 5732893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:28:10.808158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:54.682895
License: Public Domain

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to strike the defendants’ answer as a sanction for the alleged spoliation of evidence. The subject clothing was not destroyed or lost, and the plaintiff has not been deprived of evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case (see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027 [2007]; Iannucci v Rose, 8 AD3d 437, 438 [2004]). Schmidt, J.E, Goldstein, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.