From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Atlantic Oldsmobile, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).


Ordered that the appeals from the order dated January 6, 1992, and the judgment are dismissed, as the order dated January 6, 1992, and the judgment were superseded by the order dated June 12, 1992; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 12, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

On May 17, 1989, Jimmie B. Hughes suffered severe injuries and subsequently died following an engine fire in his car. Hughes had bought the car as a used car from the defendant Atlantic Oldsmobile, Ltd. (hereinafter Atlantic), and in the months before the fire the car had undergone repairs by Atlantic, as well as by the defendants Nationwide Safti-Brake Center (hereinafter Nationwide) and Tom's Colonial (hereinafter Tom's).

In the ensuing lawsuit brought by the decedent's survivors, the court issued an order directing the plaintiffs to preserve the car for inspection by the defendants' experts. Notwithstanding this directive, when the defendants' experts examined the car on November 29, 1990, they found that several parts had been removed. A subsequent motion for summary judgment was granted by order dated April 9, 1991, to the extent, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were ordered to produce for further examination, photographing, testing, etc., all the removed and/or altered vehicle parts. Upon renewed inspection, the defendants found that many of the missing parts were still not produced, while some of those that were tendered did not belong to the subject car.

Under these circumstances, where the plaintiffs have deliberately removed and replaced evidence in defiance of two court orders, thereby hopelessly prejudicing the defense, we find that the court was faced with no viable sanction alternative, and therefore properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see, Hyosung [Am.] v. Woodcrest Fabrics, 106 A.D.2d 298; Ferraro v. Koncal Assocs., 97 A.D.2d 429). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hughes v. Atlantic Oldsmobile, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Hughes v. Atlantic Oldsmobile, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:TAMMY B. HUGHES et al., Appellants, v. ATLANTIC OLDSMOBILE, LTD., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 7, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 522

Citing Cases

Schott v. St. Charles Hospital

Finally, we do not agree with the plaintiff that, by analogy with situations where a party deliberately…

In re Manshul Const. Corp.

Indeed, while I may have inherent authority to dismiss a complaint for a party's intentional or egregious…