On June 14, 2024, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Buffalo Biodiesel, Inc. v. Blue Bridge Fin., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 03259, affirming the dismissal of a complaint as a discovery sanction for failing to suspend automatic e-mail deletion, explaining:
We reject plaintiff’s contention that the court abused its discretion in striking plaintiff’s pleading as a sanction for spoliation of evidence. Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126. The nature and severity of the sanction depends upon a number of factors, including the knowledge and intent of the spoliator, the existence of proof of an explanation for the loss of the evidence, and the degree of prejudice to the opposing party. The court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction is warranted for spoliation of evidence, including an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof. While the striking of a pleading is generally limited to instances of willful or contumacious conduct, it may also be warranted where the negligent destruction of relevant evidence leaves a party prejudicially bereft of the means of proving its claim or defense.
Here, plaintiff’s failure to suspend the routine deletion of its emails during the course of litigation constituted the grossly negligent spoliation of evidence. Although plaintiff contends that defendant failed to establish the relevance of the deleted emails, it is the peculiarity of many spoliation cases that the very destruction of the evidence diminishes the ability of the deprived party to prove relevance directly and, thus, where emails are deleted either intentionally or as the result of gross negligence, the court may properly draw an inference as to their relevance. Thus, on the facts presented in this action, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in striking the complaint.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).