Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Adriene LARUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1201-31 LAFAYETTE GROUND GOWNER LLC et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126(c) to strike defendants' answer or preclude defendants from introducing surveillance video of plaintiff's accident, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to preclude defendants' from introducing the surveillance video of plaintiff's accident granted.
Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion seeking discovery sanctions. Plaintiff demonstrated that defendants acted willfully and contumaciously when they failed to turn over video footage of plaintiff's accident (see Jones v. Green, 34 A.D.3d 260, 261, 825 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1st Dept. 2006]). Defendants failed to produce the video in response to repeated explicit demands and repeatedly denied the existence of any video of plaintiff's accident. It was not until after plaintiff's deposition on May 20, 2024 and during the June 27, 2024 deposition of defendants' building manager that defendants revealed the existence of the video. While only six months elapsed from entry of the compliance order to the belated production of the video, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the late production. Defendants should be sanctioned for their dilatory behavior in producing the surveillance video after plaintiff's deposition had already taken place (see Polakoff v. NYU Hosps. Ctr., 176 A.D.3d 613, 614, 110 N.Y.S.3d 675 [1st Dept. 2019] [sanctioning the plaintiff who failed to produce audio and video recordings until after their depositions and not until the eve of the continuation of defendant's deposition, noting defendants were prejudiced by “surprise tactic” occurring after parties were deposed]).
Given the totality of the circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted the lesser sanction of preclusion (see Tai Tran v. New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 99 N.Y.2d 383, 389-390, 756 N.Y.S.2d 509, 786 N.E.2d 444 [2003]).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 5237
Decided: November 25, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)