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.
Roxanne ELLIS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered September 23, 2019, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted in part plaintiff's cross motion for spoliation sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants' summary judgment motion was properly denied. Plaintiff alleges that she sustained personal injuries while making a delivery to defendants' loading dock, and that defendants negligently operated and maintained the dock by allowing the accumulation of debris thereon, creating a hazardous condition. Defendants' head of security and loading dock manager testified that photographs of the loading dock taken immediately after the accident depicted an unacceptable condition which should have been remedied. Accordingly, summary judgment is precluded by triable issues as to whether the loading dock's condition was dangerous or defective (see Jangana v. Nicole Equities LLC, 127 A.D.3d 458, 8 N.Y.S.3d 46 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
Defendants also failed to establish a lack of notice, as no evidence was submitted to show when the area was last inspected (see Ladignon v. Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 128 A.D.3d 534, 10 N.Y.S.3d 28 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
The motion court properly granted plaintiff's cross motion for spoliation sanctions due to the defendants' failure to preserve surveillance video footage (see Maiorano v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 124 A.D.3d 536, 998 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dept. 2015] ). After the accident occurred, plaintiff informed defendants' head of security of the accident and her injuries. Thus, plaintiff established that defendants were on notice that the surveillance footage, which captured how the accident occurred and the duration of the alleged hazardous condition, might be needed for future litigation.
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: 12789
Decided: January 05, 2021
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)