Case Summary: Battle v Fulton Park Site 4 Houses, Inc.

Outline:

• Facts
• Court’s Ruling
• Why Does The Case Matter for Claims Handling
• Practice Takeaways

(click on links to advance to the sections)

Spoliation alters the settlement calculus. An adverse inference does not end the defense, but it introduces a credibility penalty at trial that plaintiffs can monetize, often increasing settlement pressure well beyond the underlying liability exposure.

In a Kings County personal injury action, the Appellate Division, Second Department modified a spoliation sanction imposed for the loss of surveillance video. While the defendants had a clear duty to preserve the footage and failed to do so, the Court held that outright preclusion of defense evidence was too harsh where the loss was negligent, not intentional. The appropriate remedy was an adverse inference charge at trial.

This decision is an important reminder for claims adjusters, risk managers, and defense counsel: failing to preserve video evidence can materially weaken a defense, but courts will still calibrate sanctions to the principles of proportionality and prejudice.

---

⚡️ What Happened:

The plaintiff alleged that he was injured while exiting a building owned or operated by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he pushed on a glass panel in the door to open it, the glass shattered, and his arm was severely lacerated.

On the day of the incident:

• A security employee employed by the defendants viewed surveillance footage of the incident.
• She prepared an incident report stating that the plaintiff had punched the glass, contradicting the plaintiff’s version.
• The footage itself was not preserved and was later automatically erased from the system.

The plaintiff sued for personal injuries and moved for spoliation sanctions after learning the video was gone. The Supreme Court granted the motion and precluded the defendants from offering any evidence based on observations from the destroyed footage. The defendants appealed.

---

📝 Court’s Ruling:

The Appellate Division modified the order.

• The defendants had a duty to preserve the surveillance footage.
• They controlled the evidence and negligently failed to preserve it.
• The video was relevant to the claims and defenses.
• Sanctions were warranted.
• However, the Court held that:
  • preclusion was an improvident exercise of discretion; and
  • the proper remedy was an adverse inference charge permitting the jury to infer that the missing video would not have favored the defendants.

The order was modified accordingly and otherwise affirmed.

---

🧭 Why This Case Matters for Claims Handling:

For claims professionals, this decision draws a clear operational line:

• Video evidence is now central evidence, not peripheral.
• Once an incident is investigated and documented—especially where injuries are reported—litigation is foreseeable.
• Automatic overwrite policies for video surveillance will not excuse a failure to preserve evidence.

At the same time, the ruling offers reassurance:

• Courts will differentiate negligence from intentional spoliation.
• Defense strategies are not automatically wiped out by a preservation failure.
• Proportionality still governs spoliation sanctions in New York.

---

✅ Key Legal Takeaways:

• Duty to Preserve Arises Early
  • Immediate investigation, injury reports, and internal incident documentation trigger preservation obligations.
• Negligent Loss ≠ Litigation Death Knell
  • Absent intentional destruction, courts favor adverse inference charges over preclusion.
• Control Over Digital Evidence Matters
  • Evidence stored on a defendant’s systems—even if subject to auto-delete—remains within the defendant’s control.
• Prejudice Drives the Sanction
  • Sanctions must align with the actual prejudice caused, not merely the existence of spoliation.

---

▌ Practice Takeaway

For adjusters and defense counsel:
The best spoliation defense is prevention. Implement immediate litigation holds for all surveillance footage after serious incidents, especially where injuries are reported or conflicting accounts exist. If evidence is lost, be prepared to demonstrate negligence, not intent, and to argue for a measured sanction, not preclusion.

This decision confirms that New York courts still value balance—but only for defendants who can show they acted reasonably once litigation was foreseeable.

---

👉 Explore more New York decisions affecting claims handling, motion practice, and litigation strategy at New York Civil Law — Case Summaries & Legal Updates. Clearly Explained

Looking to strengthen your claims protocols or spoliation response strategy? I regularly advise insurers and defense teams on preservation obligations and motion practice in New York personal injury litigation.

Photo Credit to Mika Baumeister