Opinion
Argued April 20, 2001.
May 14, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated February 2, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Featherstonhaugh, Conway, Wiley Clyne, LLP, Albany, N Y (Jeffrey J. Conklin and William F. Conway IV of counsel), for appellant.
Piper Marbury Rudnick Wolfe, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joel A. Dewey and Loren H. Brown of counsel), for respondent.
Before: O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN and COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff's post-accident repair, alteration, and removal of certain physical evidence deprived the defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., of a fair opportunity to defend the lawsuit. Thus, striking the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondent was an appropriate sanction (see, Short v. Bombardier Inc., 269 A.D.2d 522; DiDomenico v. C S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 A.D.2d 41; Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.