Unintentional spoliation leads to adverse inference charge

Understanding Spoliation of Evidence in New York Personal Injury Cases

Spoliation of evidence — the destruction or significant alteration of evidence — presents a challenging issue in personal injury litigation. While intentional destruction typically results in severe sanctions, courts must carefully balance remedies when evidence disappears unintentionally. The case of Seda v Epstein demonstrates how New York courts handle situations where defendants dispose of physical evidence without malicious intent, but also without proper notice to opposing counsel.

This decision illustrates the delicate balance courts strike between protecting a plaintiff’s right to examine evidence and recognizing that property owners may have legitimate reasons to clean up dangerous conditions. The ruling provides important guidance for attorneys handling cases where discovery disputes may arise over missing or destroyed physical evidence.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Seda v Epstein, 2010 NY Slip Op 02850 (1st Dept. 2010)

“There is no evidence that defendants’ removal of the debris was willful; indeed, the preliminary conference order merely stated that defendants were to make the premises available for inspection, and plaintiff did not [*2]schedule an inspection for more than two years (see e.g. Jimenez v Weiner, 8 AD3d 133 ). However, in view of defendants’ failure to notify plaintiff’s counsel of the intended removal, the court properly ordered the lesser sanction of an adverse inference charge (see e.g. Balaskonis v HRH Constr. Corp., 1 AD3d 120, 121 ).”

I am not sure when in no-fault practice this particular issue would arise. It is something to keep in mind if you are fighting a contested issue where substantive discovery has been ordered and the items you seek to discover suddenly “vanish”.

Key Takeaway

Even unintentional destruction of evidence can result in sanctions if the destroying party fails to provide notice to opposing counsel. Courts will impose lesser sanctions like adverse inference charges rather than case dismissal when the spoliation wasn’t willful, but procedural failures still warrant consequences to protect the discovery process.

Related Articles

• Discovery violations and court sanctions when New York courts strike back
• CPLR 3212(f) relief inappropriate under three separate circumstances
• Recent procedural developments in NY no-fault insurance law
• Understanding discovery rules and summary judgment timing in NY personal injury cases
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law