Opinion
12789 Index No. 156426/17 Case No. 2020-02241
01-05-2021
Roxanne ELLIS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Stagg Wabnik Law Group LLP, Garden City (Michael C. Dombrowski of counsel), for appellants. Reingold & Tucker, Brooklyn (Jordan W. Tucker of counsel), for respondent.
Stagg Wabnik Law Group LLP, Garden City (Michael C. Dombrowski of counsel), for appellants.
Reingold & Tucker, Brooklyn (Jordan W. Tucker of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered September 23, 2019, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted in part plaintiff's cross motion for spoliation sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants' summary judgment motion was properly denied. Plaintiff alleges that she sustained personal injuries while making a delivery to defendants' loading dock, and that defendants negligently operated and maintained the dock by allowing the accumulation of debris thereon, creating a hazardous condition. Defendants' head of security and loading dock manager testified that photographs of the loading dock taken immediately after the accident depicted an unacceptable condition which should have been remedied. Accordingly, summary judgment is precluded by triable issues as to whether the loading dock's condition was dangerous or defective (see Jangana v. Nicole Equities LLC, 127 A.D.3d 458, 8 N.Y.S.3d 46 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
Defendants also failed to establish a lack of notice, as no evidence was submitted to show when the area was last inspected (see Ladignon v. Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 128 A.D.3d 534, 10 N.Y.S.3d 28 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
The motion court properly granted plaintiff's cross motion for spoliation sanctions due to the defendants' failure to preserve surveillance video footage (see Maiorano v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 124 A.D.3d 536, 998 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dept. 2015] ). After the accident occurred, plaintiff informed defendants' head of security of the accident and her injuries. Thus, plaintiff established that defendants were on notice that the surveillance footage, which captured how the accident occurred and the duration of the alleged hazardous condition, might be needed for future litigation.