Legal Opinion
Holme v. Global Minerals & Metals Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 1, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The court providently exercised its discretion by granting an adverse inference charge against defendants due to their spoliation of their electronic accounting and trading records. Defendants had an obligation to preserve such records because they should have foreseen that the underlying litigation might give rise to the instant enforcement action; the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and they are relevant to plaintiffs claims of fraudulent conveyances (see Ahroner v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 79 AD3d 481, 482 [2010]; Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 275 AD2d 11,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose L. L. P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Ahroner v. Israel Discount BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Berger v. Fete Cab Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Chaudhry v. AbadirAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
3Cited by4 opinions
- Day v. Serenity Pharms., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Day v. Serenity Pharms., LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Rosplock v. Upstate Management Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Rosplock v. Upstate Management Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013