Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant. The circumstances of this case, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, do not indicate that the defendant has waived or should be estopped from asserting the two-year suit limitation provision contained in the subject insurance policy (see, Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 968; Blitman Constr. Corp. v. Insurance Co., 66 N.Y.2d 820, 823; Kaufman v. Republic Ins. Co., 35 N.Y.2d 867, 868; Proc v. Home Ins. Co., 17 N.Y.2d 239, 245; Fotochrome, Inc. v. American Ins. Co., 26 A.D.2d 634, affd 23 N.Y.2d 889; McGoey v. Insurance Co., 57 A.D.2d 945).
Additionally, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for punitive damages because the plaintiff failed to present "sufficient evidentiary allegations of ultimate facts of a fraudulent and deceitful scheme in dealing with the general public [or] to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations" (Valis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 132 A.D.2d 658, 658-659; see, Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401; Holoness Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 75 A.D.2d 569, 570; Catalogue Serv. v. Insurance Co., 74 A.D.2d 837). Moreover, "[t]he courts have repeatedly recognized that since unfair claim settlement practices may be redressed by administrative action pursuant to the Insurance Law, there is no need to recognize private causes of action for punitive damages" (Telemaque v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 162 A.D.2d 444, 445; Roldan v Allstate Ins. Co., 149 A.D.2d 20).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.