Adriene Larue v. 1201-31 Lafayette Ground Gowner LLC et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil procedure—discovery sanctions for late disclosure of surveillance video in a personal injury/premises case.
Denied plaintiff’s motion under CPLR 3126(c) to strike the answer or preclude defendants from introducing the surveillance video.
The denial of discovery sanctions; the Appellate Division granted preclusion of the surveillance video.
Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3126(c) [authorizes courts to impose sanctions, including preclusion or striking pleadings, for willful failure to disclose], defendants willfully and contumaciously failed to produce the accident video despite repeated demands and denied its existence until after plaintiff’s deposition, causing prejudice; preclusion was the appropriate lesser sanction.
Background
In this personal injury action, plaintiff sought discovery sanctions after defendants failed to produce surveillance footage of the accident. Despite explicit, repeated demands and a compliance order, defendants denied any video existed. Only after plaintiff’s May 20, 2024 deposition did defendants, during their building manager’s June 27, 2024 deposition, reveal the video’s existence. The video was produced approximately six months after the compliance order.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied plaintiff’s CPLR 3126(c) motion to strike defendants’ answer or preclude the surveillance video.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, finding defendants’ conduct willful and contumacious. Although six months had elapsed, the late disclosure after depositions prejudiced plaintiff. The court imposed the lesser sanction of preclusion of the surveillance video, citing the appropriateness of tailored sanctions and relying on analogous authority addressing surprise disclosure after depositions.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that withholding or denying the existence of surveillance footage until after depositions can warrant preclusion under CPLR 3126(c), even over a relatively short delay, where prejudice and willfulness are evident. It reinforces that courts will tailor sanctions to the misconduct and that preclusion is an appropriate remedy short of striking a pleading.
Late, willful nondisclosure of surveillance video—especially revealed only after depositions—invites CPLR 3126(c) preclusion as a proportionate discovery sanction.