Mangual v. New Life Sch.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order imposing an adverse inference charge and preclusion sanction based on defendants' failure to preserve surveillance footage and school nurse's notes. The court held that defendants were on notice of their preservation obligations and that the evidence supported the existence and relevance of the missing materials, while alternate sources justified declining to strike the answer.

Holdings

1. The motion court providently exercised its discretion by issuing an adverse inference charge and precluding defendants from offering testimony or argument disputing the contents of the missing surveillance footage and nurse's notes.
2. Defendants' obligation to preserve relevant evidence arose from the circumstances of the serious incident and was not negated by plaintiffs' failure to send a formal preservation notice or commence litigation until more than two years later.
3. The motion court properly considered the availability of alternate sources of information and correctly declined to impose the more drastic sanction of striking defendants' answer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by imposing an adverse inference charge and precluding defendants from disputing the contents of missing surveillance footage and nurse's notes.
2. Whether defendants had a duty to preserve the surveillance footage and nursing notes despite plaintiffs' failure to send a formal preservation notice or commence litigation until more than two years after the incident.
3. Whether the availability of alternate sources of information required the more drastic sanction of striking defendants' answer.

Disposition

affirmed