Adding Insult to Injury - Spoliation of Product Evidence, Intentional or Negligent Destruction - Section 3216 of CPLR - by Madeline Klotz

by Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.


When the Product that Allegedly Injured the Plaintiff Has Been Destroyed Before Trial

April 5, 2011

Publication Source: Nassau Lawyer

Written By: Madeline Klotz

Spoliation of Product Evidence, Intentional or Negligent Destruction - Section 3216 of CPLR

The best evidence in a products liability case is almost always the product itself. The plaintiff uses it to prove that the defective product caused plaintiff’s injuries, and that it was manufactured by the defendant. The defendant uses the actual product to prove that it had not manufactured the product, or that the product was not defective. But what happens when the product has been destroyed before trial? Can the case proceed to trial without the most critical piece of evidence? As discussed below, court opinions vary widely based upon a variety of factors. This article will discuss cases involving a party’s intentional or negligent destruction of evidence, known as spoliation, as well as cases in which evidence was innocently destroyed, and suggest public policy reasons for allowing a case to proceed to trial despite the innocent destruction of the product in question.

The Status of the Law of Spoliation

When evidence is destroyed, it is usually destroyed by a party to the case. When this happens, the party who has not destroyed the evidence may seek sanctions against the destroyer. Sanctions for the destruction of evidence are provided under Section 3126 of the CPLR. They are also available under the common law doctrine of spoliation.

The CPLR: When a party has destroyed the product, it is unable to disclose the product as evidence. Section 3126 provides three possible remedies for the failure of a party to disclose evidence: first, that the issues will be resolved in favor of the party moving for sanctions; second, an order preventing the destroying party from supporting or defending claims or defenses, and from producing evidence; or, third, an order striking the pleadings, dismissing the action, or rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party. But, for a court to strike a party’s pleading pursuant to the statute, the failure to produce the evidence must be “willful, contumacious or in bad faith.” Foncette v. LA Express, 295 A.D.2d 471, 472 (2d Dep’t 2002).

Common Law: Common law sanctions for spoliation of evidence allow striking the destroying party’s pleading when the destroyed evidence is essential to the case and the non-destroying party is unable to defend itself with “incisive evidence.” However, if the destroyed evidence is not essential or its destruction does not prejudice the other party, a lesser sanction of preclusion from proving the evidence’s condition may be imposed. See Mylonas v. Town of Brookhaven, 305 A.D.2d 561, 562-63 (2d Dep’t 2003); Foncette, 295 A.D.2d at 472; Marro v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 294 A.D.2d 341, 341 (2d Dep’t 2002).

While both the statute and common law allow the striking of a pleading, they have very different standards for imposing this drastic sanction. The distinctions are due to the different focuses of the two standards. The common law focuses its basis for sanctions on the prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, while the statute focuses on the intent or conduct of the party who caused the loss of evidence. See Favish v. Tepler, 294 A.D.2d 396 (2d Dep’t 2002). Regrettably, many court decisions do not differentiate between them resulting in conflicting opinions and confusing law.

For example, in Kirschen v. Marino, when considering whether to impose sanctions for spoliation, the court stated that

[a] party seeking a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 such as preclusion or dismissal is required to demonstrate that ‘a litigant, intentionally or negligently, dispose[d] of crucial items of evidence . . . before the adversary ha[d] an opportunity to inspect them’, thus depriving the party seeking a sanction of the means of proving his claim or defense. The gravamen of this burden is a showing of prejudice.

16 A.D.3d 555, 555 (2005). While the court in Kirschen referred to the statute, its analysis was based on the common law standard of prejudice, rather than the statutory requirement of willful, contumacious or bad faith conduct. Because courts sometimes confuse these standards, a practitioner should clearly state the sanctions sought and the proper standard required for the imposition of sanctions.

The Rarer Case When Spoliation Is Not Involved

Most case law involves situations where one of the parties, usually the plaintiff, has either intentionally or inadvertently destroyed evidence. Under these circumstances, the court may apply either a common law spoliation analysis determining the prejudice to the party seeking sanctions or a statutory analysis determining whether a party willfully destroyed the evidence. (more see pdf)

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.

Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.