Spoliation of Evidence as a Basis for Sanctions in New York

Spoliation of evidence refers to the destruction, alteration, or loss of documents, physical items, or digital records that are relevant to a legal proceeding. In New York, courts typically address spoliation through sanctions, which may include monetary penalties, preclusion of evidence, or instructing the jury to draw a negative inference against the responsible party. These sanctions are applied when a party fails to preserve evidence that they knew or reasonably should have known would be material to the dispute. In limited situations, spoliation may also be addressed when it involves a violation of an independent legal or contractual duty to maintain evidence.

Existence of a Potential Civil Action

A plaintiff must first show that they were involved in, or had a reasonable basis to bring, a civil lawsuit. The lawsuit does not have to be pending at the time the evidence was destroyed, but there must have been a real and identifiable claim. In other words, the legal action must have been more than a possibility—it should have been likely or imminent, with a valid legal foundation.

A Legal or Contractual Duty to Preserve Evidence

The party accused of spoliation must have had a legal or contractual obligation to preserve the evidence. This duty could stem from a statute, regulation, court order, internal policy, or written agreement. Without such a duty, the destruction of evidence might be viewed as careless, but not legally actionable. For example, if a hospital is required by law to maintain patient records, failure to preserve those documents may give rise to a claim.

Destruction of the Evidence

There must be clear proof that the evidence in question was destroyed, lost, or tampered with. The destruction may be intentional or the result of negligence, but it must be traceable to the party being sued. Merely misplacing an item is not enough—the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions or inaction caused the evidence to become unavailable.

Significant Impairment in Proving the Case

The loss of the evidence must significantly impact the plaintiff’s ability to prove their case. If other available evidence can fill the gap, a court may find that the loss is not material. However, when the destroyed evidence would have provided key proof—such as video footage of an accident, crucial emails in a fraud case, or a defective product in a personal injury claim—its absence can fatally weaken the case. The missing evidence must be so important that, without it, the plaintiff is seriously disadvantaged in making their legal argument.

Causal Connection

The plaintiff must also establish that the destruction of the evidence directly caused their difficulty in pursuing the lawsuit. If the case was weak to begin with, or if the evidence wouldn’t have meaningfully improved their position, the court may reject the claim. It’s not enough to say that evidence was destroyed; the plaintiff must show that this specific loss is the reason their case failed or suffered significant harm.

A Real Chance of Winning

The court will consider whether the plaintiff had a realistic chance of success had the evidence not been destroyed. This involves an assessment of the strength of the original case. Courts do not allow spoliation claims based on lawsuits that were speculative or lacking in merit. There must have been a strong likelihood that the plaintiff would have prevailed if the key evidence had been available and properly preserved.

Damages

Finally, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered actual harm as a result of the spoliation. This may include monetary loss, the inability to recover in the original case, or the loss of a legal right. Without showing concrete damages, a spoliation claim will not succeed. The damages must be clearly tied to the loss of evidence and not to unrelated issues in the underlying case.

Conclusion

Spoliation of evidence claims in New York are difficult to bring and even harder to win. Courts require strict proof of each element, especially a clear legal duty to preserve the evidence and real harm caused by its destruction. While not often recognized as an independent cause of action, spoliation may still play a significant role in litigation where the loss of evidence undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

Find the Law

“The elements of the tort of spoliation of evidence include:

(1) existence of a potential civil action;

(2) a legal or contractual duty to preserve evidence which is relevant to that action;

(3) destruction of that evidence;

(4) significant impairment in the ability to prove the potential civil action;

(5) a causal connection between the destruction of the evidence and the inability to prove the lawsuit;

(6) a significant possibility of success of the potential civil action if the evidence were available; and

(7) damages. (Oliver, supra, 297 Mont at 348, 993 P2d at 19.).” Ortega v. City of New York, 11 Misc. 3d 848, 860 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)