Summary
This is an Appellate Division, Second Department decision reviewing a Supreme Court order in a personal injury slip-and-fall action. The appellate court modified the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the restaurant defendant, holding that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition or lack actual or constructive notice of it. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for spoliation sanctions, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant intentionally or negligently destroyed surveillance footage after being on notice of potential litigation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant met its summary‑judgment burden by showing it did not create the hazardous condition or had no actual or constructive notice of it.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to sanctions against the defendant for alleged spoliation of surveillance video.
Holdings
- The summary‑judgment order granting dismissal was reversed; the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the dangerous condition or lacked actual or constructive notice, so the motion was denied.
- The motion for sanctions was denied because the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had a duty to preserve the video, acted with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was material to the claim.
Key quotations
“A party with ownership or control of real property "has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition".” (at 1)
“"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".” (at 1)
Factual background
The plaintiff slipped on a greasy substance on the floor of the defendant's restaurant and sustained injuries. She sought surveillance footage of the incident; the defendant claimed any video was automatically overwritten after 7‑10 days and offered no specific evidence of cleaning or inspection of the area where she fell.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a personal injury action in April 2022. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the Supreme Court, Queens County entered an order on November 13, 2023 granting that motion and denying sanctions. Plaintiff appealed.