Doe v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Doe v City of New York 2020 NY Slip Op 30183(U) January 24, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 151500/2019 Judge: Lyle E. Frank Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2020 09:56 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 INDEX NO. 151500/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. LYLE E. FRANK IAS MOTION 52EFM Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 151500/2019 01/22/2020 002 · MOTION SEQ. NO. - - --- -vTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TERRI RUYTER INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JOHN DOE 1-4 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31, 32,33,34, 35, 36, 38 SANCTIONS were read on this motion to/for Plaintiffs move for sanctions on the grounds that defendants failed to preserve video surveillance in violation of its obligations. Defendants oppose the instant motion on various grounds. For the reasons set forth below plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' answer is denied, with other possible sanctions denied without prejudice to bring this motion again at the time of trial. On December 7, 2017, plaintiff John Doe was allegedly sexually assaulted by another student in the playground in a public school under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education (DOE). That same day, an Occurrence Report was issued regarding the alleged assault and plaintiff Jane Doe verbally requested a copy of video surveillance footage from this playground area. Jane Doe followed up with additional requests. Jane Doe subsequently went to the school and along with defendant Ruyter, the principal of the school, viewed surveillance Page 1of4 151500/2019 DOE, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 002 1 of 4 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2020 09:56 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 INDEX NO. 151500/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2020 footage from the day of the assault. This footage did not show the assault, but rather showed two school employees standing and talking to each other while plaintiff alleges the assault was taking place. On December 15, 201 7, a notice of claim was filed, which was amended on March 1, 2018. On February 26, 2018, a preservation of evidence notice was sent by plaintiffs' counsel via e-mail to both Ms. Ruyter's email address, as well as what plaintiffs claim but have not proven is the DOE general counsel's email address. On March 6, 2018, the notice was then sent via certified mail to the General Counsel of the DOE. On or about March 7, 2018, all video surveillance from the location on the date in question was erased pursuant to the DOE's 90 -day retention archive policies. Discussion In support of the portion of plaintiffs' motion that seeks to strike the defendants' answer, plaintiffs cite to an abundance of case law where defendants conduct was clearly outrageous as to warrant the striking of its answer. Based on the facts before this Court, plaintiff has not established that defendants intended to conceal or destroy evidence, thus failing to warrant such an extreme sanction, especially where here the mailed notice of preservation was sent at most one day before the evidence was to be destroyed. Accordingly, the portion of plaintiffs' motion that seeks to strike the City's answer is denied. Strong v City ofNew York, cited by plaintiffs although distinguishable from the instant matter, is quite instructive. (112 AD3d 15 [1st Dept 2013]). The issue in Strong was the automatic destruction of police department radio run recordings. There the Court held that "the negligent erasure of audiotapes can certainly give rise to the imposition of spoliation sanctions under New York's common-law spoliation doctrine, if the alleged spoliator was on notice [that] 151500/2019 DOE, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 002 Page 2 of 4 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2020 09:56 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 INDEX NO. 151500/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2020 the [audiotapes] might be needed for future litigation"(Jd at 22 [emphasis added, internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). The Court in Strong did not find that the City acted willfully and contumaciously, thus it rejected plaintiffs request to strike one of the City's affirmative defenses, a less severe sanction than striking defendants entire answer as requested here. Notably, in Strong there was a pre-action Order to Show Cause served on the agency maintaining the recordings, which was not done here. Plaintiffs' reliance on Strong for its argument that the City's obligation to preserve the video surveillance was triggered with the filing of the Notice of Claim is misplaced. The Court in Strong held that the City was on notice within the 180-day retention period of the audio recording, by the notice of claim, the 50-h testimony and the City interposing its answer. The parties in Strong and plaintiffs are not in the same posture. The Court therefore denies plaintiffs' motion without prejudice to bring as a motion in limine before the assigned trial justice. At that point in the litigation discovery will have been conducted and the extent of plaintiffs' prejudice, if any, will be apparent thus enabling the trial justice to decide this issue on a full record. It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion is to strike defendants answer is de~ied; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for other spoliation sanctions is denied without prejudice as indicated above. 151500/2019 DOE, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 002 Page 3 of 4 3 of 4 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2020 09:56 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2020 Jl 1/24/2020 L~. FRANK, t~E DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INDEX NO. 151500/2019 ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 NON-FINAL DENIED DISPOSl~ON· GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 151500/2019 DOE, JANE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Motion No. 002 D D E. OTHER REFERENCE Page 4 of 4 4 of 4 f~l< J.S.C·

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.