Tag: commercial litigation

Spoilation of Evidence

On December 29, 2014, in Corporate, Criminal, Litigation, Personal Injury, by John A. Weber IV, ESQ.

garbage

Spoliation of Evidence

In September of this year, the Second Department reached a decision in Lentini v. Weschler, 2014 NY Slip Op 06062, with regards to the “Spoilation of Evidence.”  Spoilation refers to the destruction or repair of critical evidence that will interfere with the ability of a litigant to prosecute or defend a claim.  Generally, a preservation notice is required to alert the party in possession of the evidence that the evidence may be necessary for potential litigation.  If the finds that spoilation occurred, the court can issue sanctions against the party who caused spoilation.  In Lentini, the court held that spoilation sanctions require a litigatn to prove that the other party disposed of the critical evidence and fatally compromised the other party’s ability to prove or defend a claim.  The disposal would have to have been intentional or negligent.  A preservation notice was sent in Lentini.  Therefore the court did not have to opine on whether or not the spoilation sanctions could be issued if the preservation notice was not given.

Long Island Litigation Attorneys

If you have been involved in an incident that caused damage to yourself or property, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 today to discuss the necessary steps to preserve evidence critical to your case.

Interesting Legal Procedure Decision

On October 21, 2014, in Landlord-Tenant, Litigation, Personal Injury, by John A. Weber IV, ESQ.

countycourt2

 

Legal Procedure Decision

In Roseman v. Baranowski, 2014 NY Slip Op. 05635, the Second Department allowed Plaintiff leave to amend the summons and complaint in order to add a doctor as a defendant after EBT’s (depositions) were conducted.  Plaintiff’s reason to add the doctor was that the doctor was “united in interest” with the original Defendants.  The Court focused on the fact that the doctor being added either knew or should have known that he should have been included in the original action.  More specifically, using the relation back doctrine, the Court considered if the new Defendant had notice within the applicable statute of limitations period.  Hospital records listing work performed by new Defendant were used as proof of the new Defendant’s notice.

This case illustrates the importance of correctly bringing an action against all parties in interest.  Failure to include a party can be detrimental or fatal to your case.

As always, if you have questions regarding the commencement of an action, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak with a Litigation Attorney today!

WhiteHouse by PageLines

Copyright © 2020 Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber and Prakope, PLLC
All Rights Reserved