Riley v. ISS International Service System, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cafaro v. Emergency Services Holding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Matter of Lopez v. Reyes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- IMANVERDI, ATASH v. POPOVICI, DPM, BRYAN G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Bibi Khan-Soleil v. Rashad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Bibi Khan-Soleil v. Rashad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Awon v. Harran Transportation Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Sweeney & Harkin Carpentry & Dry Wall Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Morgenstern v. Jeffsam Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. D'Angelo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Rozen v. Nite Riders Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Yax v. Development Team, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Stroppel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Kane v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Denoyelles v. Gallagher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Nieves v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Arons v. Jutkowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Jacobs v. Macy's East, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Deveau v. CF Galleria at White Plains (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Halleran v. Narula (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Balaskonis v. HRH Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Belen, J.), dated March 5, 2002, as granted that branch of his motion which was to strike the answer of the defendants Trump-Equitable Fifth Avenue Company, Trump Corporation, Residential Board of Trump Tower Condominium, Wm. A. White/Grubb & Ellis, Inc., Trump Tower Commercial, LLC, and the Trump Organization based on alleged discovery violations only to the extent of conditionally precluding those defendants from introducing evidence at trial unless they submitted an affidavit concerning the disappearance of certain logbooks, directing the production of certain documents, and awarding an attorney’s fee in the sum of $2,500, and denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment against those defendants based on the alleged spoliation of evidence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion to determine whether — and to what degree — to impose sanctions against a party for discovery violations (see CPLR 3126; Barth v City of New York, 294 AD2d 386 [2002]; Mohammed v 919 Park Place Owners Corp., 245 AD2d 351 [1997]; Cruzatti v St. Mary’s Hosp., 193 AD2d 579 [1993]). Here, the Supreme Court’s
Additionally, since the plaintiff failed to show that the logbooks contained information crucial to his case and that he suffered prejudice by their loss, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment against the respondents based on the doctrine of spoliation of evidence (see Favish v Tepler, 294 AD2d 396 [2002]; Knightner v Custom Window & Door Prods., 289 AD2d 455, 456 [2001]; Tawedros v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y., 281 AD2d 184 [2001]; Puccia v Farley, 261 AD2d 83, 85 [1999]).
Finally, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the Trump defendants’ responses to certain discovery demands were adequate. S. Miller, J.P., Gold-stein, McGinity and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.