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.
Darlene KULHAN, Respondent, v. MINXRAY, INC., Defendant, Surgical Supply Service, Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Surgical Supply Service appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated October 16, 1997, as denied its cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of spoilation of evidence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained physical injuries when the X-ray machine she was using in examining a patient disassembled, striking her. As a result, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against both the manufacturer Minxray, Inc., and the appellant distributor-installer of the unit, Surgical Supply Service (hereinafter the defendant), asserting causes of action to recover damages based on negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. Prior to commencing the action, the plaintiff had the unit in question tested by experts, and subsequently moved the unit when she relocated her podiatry office. The appellant was provided with photographs and a video of the testing, and the stored X-ray unit was available for inspection.
We agree with the Supreme Court that under these circumstances the plaintiff's complaint should not be dismissed, nor should she be sanctioned for spoilation of evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's testing and relocation of the unit constituted either negligent or intentional spoilation (see, Prasad v. B.K. Chevrolet, 184 A.D.2d 626, 584 N.Y.S.2d 881).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: November 09, 1998
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)