From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BEIR v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 1985
110 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 11, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kenneth Shorter, J.).


Punitive or exemplary damages are allowed only "in cases where the wrong complained of is morally culpable, or is actuated by evil and reprehensible motives, not only to punish the defendant but to deter him, as well as others who might otherwise be so prompted, from indulging in similar conduct in the future." ( Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 404.) In that connection, the record herein does not contain any indication that defendant bank exhibited the high degree of moral turpitude which would justify the imposition of punitive damages. ( Luxonomy Cars v. Citibank, 65 A.D.2d 549.) Moreover, in the absence of exceptional circumstances not here apparent, a claim for punitive damages does not lie in an action seeking recovery for payment on forged indorsements. ( See, Titan Air Conditioning Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 61 A.D.2d 764.)

Concur — Sandler, J.P., Sullivan, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.


Summaries of

BEIR v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 11, 1985
110 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

BEIR v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT L. BEIR et al., Respondents, v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 11, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Wallach Marine Corp. v. Donzi Marine Corp.

Further, the facts alleged constitute simply a commercial motive. See Beir v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust…

Ponnambalam v. Ponnambalam

on such interest. Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the Ponnambalams, as the court must…