| Shan Palakawong v Lalli |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07287 [88 AD3d 541] |
| October 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Shan Palakawong, Plaintiff, v Marie Lalli, Sued Herein asAJ Lalli, et al., Defendants. Marie Lalli et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Edwin Perez,Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Edwin Perez, Respondent, v A.J. Lalli et al., Appellants, etal., Defendant. |
—[*1] Goldman & Grossman, New York (Eleanor R. Goldman of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered on or about June 25,2010, which, in related personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident, denied theLallis' motion to dismiss Perez's action and any of Perez's claims and defenses in the third-partyaction or to issue other sanctions for Perez's spoliation of his motorcycle, unanimously modified,on the law and the facts, to grant the motion to the extent of precluding Perez from presentingevidence at trial as to the condition of his motorcycle after the accident, without prejudice toseeking an adverse inference charge at trial, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.[*2]
The Lallis may rely on evidence other than Perez'smotorcycle to prove that they did not cause the motor vehicle accident, including the policeaccident report and their insurer's inspections of other vehicles involved in the accident. Thus,Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the Lallis' motionseeking to dismiss Perez's action (see Tommy Hilfiger, USA v Commonwealth Trucking,300 AD2d 58, 60 [2002]). However, a lesser sanction is warranted given Perez's intentionalalteration of his motorcycle (see Kugel vCity of New York, 60 AD3d 403 [2009]; Rodriguez v 551 Realty LLC, 35 AD3d 221 [2006]).Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.