In this personal injury action, any shortcomings in the witnesses' memory or perception merely go to credibility and the weight of the evidence, not its competence. The value to be accorded to the evidence is a matter for resolution by the trier of fact.
Pichardo v. George Units, LLC, NY Slip Op 01926 (1st Dep't March 31, 2026)
Pursuant to CPLR 1024, "[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly." In order to be effective, a summons and complaint must describe the unknown party in such a manner that the John Doe would understand that he is the intended defendant by a reading of the papers. An insufficient description subjects the John Doe complaint to dismissal for being jurisdictionally defective. Parties may not resort to the John Doe procedure unless, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, they exercise due diligence to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so. Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the John Doe's name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party.
M.C.-B v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 01758 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)
Although the order is not appealable as of right, the Appellate Division deems the notice of appeal to be an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to CPLR 5701(c), and grants leave.
Robinson v. Redleaf Capital, LLC, NY Slip Op 01863 (1st Dep't March 26, 2026)
Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned. A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation must show that the party having control over the evidence was obliged to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense. A culpable state of mind for purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence. However, in the absence of pending litigation or notice of a specific claim, a defendant should not be sanctioned for discarding items in good faith and pursuant to its normal business practices.
Atsaves v. El Caribe Caterers, LLC, NY Slip Op 01752 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)
Because summary judgment is granted in favor of the moving defendants, the cross-claims against them for common-law indemnification and contribution are dismissed.
Rodriguez v. Madison Sec. Group, Inc., NY Slip Op 01869 (1st Dep't March 26, 2026)
