Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Allstate Insurance v. Kearns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 14, 2003

309 A.D.2d 776; 765 N.Y.S.2d 806

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Bah v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Ortiz v. Bajwa Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Gotto v. Eusebe-Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Zaytsev v. Zelman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Coleman v. Putnam Hospital Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Holland v. W.M. Realty Management, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Barnes v. Paulin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
De Los Santos v. Polanco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Iannucci v. Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 a subrogation action to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered July 24, 2002, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was to strike the answer of the defendants Robert Kearns and Jane Kearns pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon spoliation of evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The determination of the appropriate sanction for spoliation of evidence is within the broad discretion of the Supreme Court (see Horace Mann Ins. Co. v E.T. Appliances, 290 AD2d 418, 419 [2002]). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination to impose only the sanction of a negative inference charge, rather than the harsher sanction of striking the respondents’ answer, was a provident exercise of its discretion. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.