The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant’s motion to strike the Answer based upon spoliation of evidence: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, & Exhibits Attached 1 Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits Attached 2 Reply Affirmation & Exhibits Attached 3 Filed papers: Claim, Answer Claimant’s Motion to strike State’s Answer based upon alleged spoliation of evidence denied. However, Court finds Defendant disposed of relevant evidence and grants Motion to the extent of precluding Defendant from offering certain evidence and finds Claimant is entitled to an adverse inference. Recitation: For the reasons set forth below, Claimant’s Motion, pursuant to CPLR §§3126(2) and (3) to strike the State’s Answer, based upon the alleged spoliation of evidence, is denied. However, the Court finds that Defendant disposed of relevant evidence, and the Motion is granted to the extent that the Court precludes the State from offering evidence, testimonial or documentary, as to the condition of the wooden shelf or locker prior to Claimant’s accident, nor may the State offer any expert testimony regarding the shelf or locker to refute Claimant’s proof. In addition, Defendant may not offer any evidence, testimonial or documentary, regarding lack of notice of the condition of the shelf or locker based upon its failure to retain the cell inventory sheets, prior grievances, and work orders, for cell B1-6. Further, the Court finds that Claimant is entitled to an adverse inference against Defendant on the issue of notice at trial that the destroyed cell inventory sheets, prior grievances, and work orders would not have supported Defendant’s position on the issue of notice and would not have contradicted the evidence offered by Claimant, and that the strongest inference will be drawn against Defendant on the issue of notice (see PJI 1:77.3; Flores v. State of New York, UID No. 2016049-102 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Nov. 10, 2016]). Claimant is not relieved of his burden of establishing the existence of a defect and causal relationship between the defect and the accident. The Claim, which was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court on November 22, 2017, alleges that, on December 1, 2015, Claimant was incarcerated at Wallkill Correctional Facility (hereinafter, “Wallkill”). It is asserted that, at approximately 10:40 a.m. on that date, Claimant was in cell B1-6 when he was injured by a piece of shelving that fell on him as a result of Defendant’s negligence (Claimant’s Ex. J. [Claim],
3, 9-10). Claimant’s counsel, in his affirmation in support of the Motion, asserts that, on the morning of December 1, 2015, Claimant was ordered to move from his previous cell to cell B1-6 (Affirmation of Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq. [hereinafter, "Rubenstein Affirmation"], 6; see Claimant’s Ex. A [transcript of Claimant's deposition], pp. 22-24; Claimant’s Ex. B [Claimant's Affidavit], 6).1 The cell was furnished with a bunk bed and also had, for each incarcerated individual (hereinafter, “II”) housed in the cell, a locker, a chair, and a wooden shelf that sat atop each locker (Rubenstein Affirmation, 8, and Claimant’s Ex. B). According to Correction Officer (hereinafter, “CO”) Timothy Schreibel, shelves like the one that struck Claimant are supposed to be bolted down to lockers (Rubenstein Affirmation, 61; see Claimant’s Ex. C [transcript of deposition of CO Schreibel], pp. 81-82). The shelves in the B1-6 cell each had a horizontal rod that ran below the shelf, similar to a shower rod. IIs hung their clothing on the rod and stored pots, pans, and other possessions on top of the shelf (Rubenstein Affirmation, 9; see Claimant’s Ex. C, pp. 78-81). At his deposition, CO Schreibel identified a photograph showing a similar type of wooden shelf (although not necessarily the same size, weight, length, or width) and a locker similar to the type that was in the B1-6 cell that was involved in the incident (Rubenstein Affirmation, 9; Claimant’s Ex. C, pp. 78-79). Claimant had moved all of his belongings to cell B1-6 and left them outside the cell. His new cell mate, Mr. Davis, stood outside the cell, so Claimant could move his possessions, including his mattress, into the cell (Rubenstein Affirmation,
