Jorgge v Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC
Categories
Judges
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Retail premises liability and spoliation of evidence arising from a worker's fall from a ladder inside a supermarket.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3126 [authorizing sanctions for spoliation of evidence and other discovery-related misconduct] and precluded eyewitness employee John Karen from testifying at trial because his written accident statement could not be produced.
The Appellate Division overturned the portion of the order that precluded Karen from testifying and replaced it with a direction that the jury receive an adverse inference charge against the defendant at trial.
The appellate court held that the defendant negligently lost or destroyed the witness statement and that the statement was relevant, but the plaintiff did not show intentional or willful spoliation. Because some sanction was warranted but witness preclusion was too severe, an adverse inference was the proportionate remedy.
Background
The plaintiff, an employee of a nonparty commercial extermination company, allegedly was injured in September 2022 when he fell from a ladder at the defendant's store. The incident was documented in an accident report, captured on video, and allegedly witnessed by store employee John Karen. During discovery, Karen testified at deposition that he gave a written statement to store manager Nakia Nivens on the day of the accident. After the plaintiff demanded that statement, the defendant responded that it could not be located and submitted affidavits from Nivens stating that she could not recall whether she requested or received such a statement and that, after a thorough search, no written statement from Karen was found. The plaintiff then moved for spoliation sanctions under CPLR 3126.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, found that sanctions were appropriate for the missing witness statement and granted the plaintiff's motion to the extent of precluding eyewitness John Karen from testifying at trial.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the witness-preclusion sanction and substituting a direction that an adverse inference charge be given against the defendant at trial regarding the missing written statement. As modified, the order was affirmed, with costs to the defendant.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York spoliation principles: when evidence is negligently lost, the moving party must show relevance, but relevance is presumed only when destruction is intentional or willful. Even where negligent spoliation is established, the sanction must be proportionate to the level of culpability and prejudice. Here, the court concluded that negligent loss of a relevant witness statement justified an adverse inference, not the harsher sanction of barring the witness from testifying.
If a party negligently loses a relevant witness statement in a personal injury case, New York courts may impose a jury adverse inference rather than witness preclusion unless there is proof of intentional or willful destruction.