Court Opinion

ID: 9958768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:22.276783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:50.525071
License: Public Domain

Schecht v Starbucks Corps.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31046(U)
                     March 28, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158469/2019
                  Judge: Adam Silvera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158469/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                     NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:        HON. ADAM SILVERA                                 PART                                 13
                                                                Justice
          ---------------------------------------------------X
                                                                            INDEX NO.            158469/2019
           LESLIE SCHECHT,
                                                                            MOTION DATE           10/02/2023
                                            Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.           003
                                      -v-
           STARBUCKS CORPORATIONS, STARBUCKS COFFEE
           COMPANY, BPP PCV OWNER LLC,STUYVESANT                               DECISION + ORDER ON
           TOWN/PETER COOPER VILLAGE                                                  MOTION

                                            Defendant.
          ------------------------          -----------------X

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 79, 80, 81, 82, 83,
          84,85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92,93, 94,103,104,107
          were read on this motion to/for                                 STRIKE PLEADINGS

                  Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral arguments, it is ordered that plaintiff's

          motion seeking to strike defendants' answer, or alternative to preclude defendants from

          contesting notice, is granted in accordance with the decision below.

                  In this personal injury action, plaintiff moves to strike defendants' answer for spoliation

          of evidence, or to preclude. Plaintiff alleges that on September 27, 2016, she tripped and fell

          inside of a Starbucks coffee shop near the cash register on a raised, defective tile. Plaintiff argues

          that defendants were aware of the exact date, time, and location of plaintiffs accident as the

          accident occurred inside of a Starbucks coffee shop where Starbucks employees were present,

          immediately came to her aid, and filled out an incident report indicating the date and time of

          plaintiff's accident. According to plaintiff, on October 5, 2016, plaintiff returned to the store to

          request the accident report, advising defendants that she would "pursue this", which defendant's

          representative conceded constitutes a claim such that the video surveillance should have been

           158469/2019 SCHECHT, LESLIE vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATIONS                                 Page 1 of 4
           Motion No. 003

          [* 1]
                                                         1 of 4
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 158469/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

         preserved. See Affirmation in Support, dated September 30, 2023, ill 9. Despite this, video

         surveillance of plaintiffs accident was destroyed. It is undisputed that defendants failed to

         preserve video of plaintiffs accident. It is further undisputed that defendants produced only the

         video immediately following plaintiffs accident, the video starting when plaintiff had already

         fallen and was on the floor. Defendants oppose and plaintiff replies.

                 "Under the common law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it

         negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence". Hegbeli v TJX Companies, Inc., 64

         Misc3d 1202(A)(Sup Ct NY County 2019). citing McDonnell v Sandaro Realty, Inc., 165 AD3d

         1090, I 094-1095 (2 nd Dep't 2018). "A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must

         show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the

         time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the

         destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact could

         find that the evidence would support that claim or defense". Pegasus Aviation L Inc. v Varig

         Logistica, SA., 26 NY3d 543, 547 (2015).

                 Here, plaintiff has established that defendants knew of plaintiffs accident and had the

         date and time of such accident. In fact, defendants' own incident report noted the time of the

         accident at 11 :00am and ending at 12:30pm. Plaintiff further established that plaintiff spoke with

         an employee of defendant Starbucks prior to the destruction of the video and that such employee

         deemed plaintiffs notice as a claim. It is uncontroverted that defendants failed to preserve the

          video despite knowing there would be a claim. In opposition, defendants argue that the instant

          motion must be denied as defendants exhibited no willful or contumacious behavior, and that

          plaintiff has not shown that defendant Starbucks willfully destroyed the video. Defendants argue

          that video surveillance was preserved, however, the time of the preserved video was based upon

           158469/2019 SCHECHT, LESLIE vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATIONS                               Page 2 of 4
           Motion No. 003

         [* 2]
                                                       2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158469/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

         a mistake in the time defendant allegedly believed the accident took place. According to

         defendants, plaintiff took pictures of the alleged defect and can describe the accident and how

         she fell such that plaintiff can still prosecute her case.

                 Despite defendants' arguments, it is undisputed that defendants were aware of the subject

         accident and that plaintiff would be pursuing a claim but failed to preserve the video at the

         correct time which was noted in defendants' own report. Furthermore, plaintiff correctly argues

         that the destruction of the video has hindered plaintiffs ability to defend against defendants'

         claims that plaintiff did not trip on the defect, but rather she just tripped on her own feet, as

         argued in defendants' motion for summary judgment pending sub judice. In a recent decision, the

         First Department held that "the footage from the period before plaintiffs slip and fall was crucial

         to plaintiffs proof of notice. It would have shown the origin of the substance plaintiff allegedly

         slipped on, and how long the condition existed." Wagman v Morgan Stanley Children's Hosp. of

         NY Presbyterian, et. al., 220 AD3d 502, 503 (1 st Dep't 2023). Similarly, here, the evidence

         which was destroyed was relevant to, and could have been used to support, plaintiffs claim, to

         show notice of the alleged condition, and to defend against defendants' allegation that plaintiff

         just tripped over her own feet. The Appellate Division has held that "if the moving party is still

          able to establish or defend a case, then a sanction less severe than striking the pleadings of the

          offending party is appropriate". Hegbeli, 64 Misc3d 1202(A), citing Peters v Hernandez, 142

          AD3d 980, 981 (2 nd Dep't 2016). As such, plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent that

          defendants are hereby precluded from contesting causation and liability in any substantive

          motion and at trial.

                 Accordingly, it is

           158469/2019 SCHECHT, LESLIE vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATIONS                                 Page 3 of 4
           Motion No. 003

         [* 3]
                                                          3 of 4
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 158469/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                 ORDERED that plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent that defendants are precluded

         from contesting causation and liability in any substantive motion and at trial; and it is further

                 ORDERED that the parties shall appear on April 3, 2024 at 9:30am, in room 422 of 60

         Centre Street, New York, NY, for a settlement conference; and it is further

                 ORDERED that, within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve upon all parties to this

         action a copy of this decision and order, together with notice of entry.

                 This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    3(28(2024
                     DATE                                                       ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.
          CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      GRANTED         □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
          APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

          CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

          158469/2019 SCHECHT, LESLIE vs. STARBUCKS CORPORATIONS                                 Page 4 of 4
          Motion No. 003

            [* 4]
                                                         4 of 4