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.
Diane SANNA, plaintiff-respondent, v. RIM, INC., et al., defendants, Jardin, Ltd., etc., et al., defendants-respondents, U.S. Lock Corporation, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants U.S. Lock Corporation, WOC, Inc., Waxman Industries, Inc., and Waxman Consumer Products, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson J.), dated October 7, 2002, which granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Jardin, Ltd., and Fortunoff which were for summary judgment on their respective cross claims for contribution and indemnity against them, and granted the plaintiff's separate motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against them based upon spoliation of evidence.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motions are denied.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured in her workplace when the chair in which she sat collapsed. She commenced this action against, among others, the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the chair alleging, inter alia, products liability. The plaintiff also alleged that the appellants were negligent in their maintenance of the subject chair.
In the course of discovery, the plaintiff claimed that she kept the subject chair in her possession in contemplation of litigation. At the same time, the appellants claimed that the subject chair was safeguarded in their storeroom for more than two years until it was inadvertently discarded by a cleaning service. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists which precluded the granting of summary judgment based upon spoliation of evidence (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Knightner v. Custom Window & Door Prods., 289 A.D.2d 455, 735 N.Y.S.2d 576).
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.
Decided: June 28, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)