Opinion
2003-09138.
Decided May 3, 2004.
In an action to recover for property damage, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated October 9, 2003, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to preclude the plaintiffs, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126, from offering any evidence at trial relating to the collapse of the subject premises, based on the alleged spoliation of evidence, and to preclude the use of documentary evidence at trial of the plaintiffs' deceased expert, Igor Vassliev.
Solomon E. Antar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
Stahl Zelmanovitz, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for respondents.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal by the defendants from so much of the order as denied their motion to preclude the use of documentary evidence at trial of the plaintiffs' deceased expert, Igor Vassliev is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that under the circumstances presented here, the plaintiffs should not have been sanctioned for the spoliation of evidence. The defendants failed to demonstrate that the demolition of the plaintiffs' building pursuant to mandate of the Department of Buildings was an intentional attempt to hide or destroy evidence ( see Popfinger v. Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 A.D.2d 564), or a negligent destruction of evidence that the plaintiffs had a duty to preserve ( see Andretta Lenahan, 303 A.D.2d 527; Piazza v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 300 A.D.2d 381).
So much of the order as denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to preclude the use of documentary evidence at trial of the plaintiffs' deceased expert, Igor Vassliev was, in effect, an evidentiary ruling. Such "an evidentiary ruling, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission" ( Savarese v. City of New York Hous. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 506, 509).
SMITH, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.