ABENANTE v. STAR GAS CORPORATION

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant disturbed or destroyed physical evidence that it knew might be needed for future litigation, or that they were prejudiced by any of the defendant's actions. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion (see, Gallo v. Bay Ridge Lincoln Mercury, 262 A.D.2d 450; Popfinger v. Terminix Intl. Co., Ltd. Partnership, 251 A.D.2d 564; Prasad v. B.K. Chevrolet, 184 A.D.2d 626; compare, DiDomenico v. C S Aeromatick Supplies, 252 A.D.2d 41).