Caldwell v. 928 Gerard Avenue Partners, 57 Misc. 3d 857 (2017)

Citation: Caldwell v. 928 Gerard Avenue Partners, 57 Misc. 3d 857 (2017)
Parent Document: Caldwell v. 928 Gerard Avenue Partners, 57 Misc. 3d 857 (2017)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2017-07-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6319195/caldwell-v-928-gerard-avenue-partners/ ↗

Full Text

961 chars

. The court does not credit this testimony. As an initial matter, the court credits plaintiff’s testimony that she never received the letters. None of the letters are accompanied by independent verification of service other than the testimony of defendant’s construction manager, David Mahendra Datt, who testified that he never interacted with anyone and always slid the letters under the door (tr 80 et seq.). Second, even if the letters had been served, they were all dated several months after the litigation had been started; that is, well after defendant knew that the items should have been preserved. Finally, Regev testified that he possessed text messages to plaintiff, but never introduced them into evidence (Reichman v Warehouse One, 173 AD2d 250, 252 [1st Dept 1991] [“(a)n unfavorable inference may be drawn when ... a party fails to produce evidence which is within his (or her) control and which he (or she) is naturally expected to produce”]).

Other Sections in This Document (23)

Full Text