From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldin v. Conway Motors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 11, 1986
122 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

August 11, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff Shirley Goldin was injured when she tripped over a rope in the defendant's establishment. The deposition of the defendant's general manager, which the plaintiffs rely upon in their motion to amend, reveals that the rope was two feet long, about the thickness of a clothesline, discolored from use, was attached to the bottom of an overhead garage-type door, and was used to pull the door closed. In our view, these facts do not justify a claim for punitive damages. Contrary to the conclusory allegations in the amended complaint, as a matter of law, the alleged conduct was not so gross, wanton or willful, or of such high moral culpability, as to entitle the plaintiff to an award of punitive damages (see, Walker v Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401; Bader's Residence for Adults v Telecom Equip. Corp., 90 A.D.2d 764). Hence the proposed amendment was totally devoid of merit (Krupp v Aetna Life Cas. Co., 104 A.D.2d 857), and the motion was properly denied. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goldin v. Conway Motors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 11, 1986
122 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Goldin v. Conway Motors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LEE GOLDIN et al., Appellants, v. CONWAY MOTORS, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 11, 1986

Citations

122 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Zacma Cleaners Corporation v. Gimbel

Thus, that individual may be added as a plaintiff in order to assert claims which may not be asserted in the…

Kaiser v. Fishman

As Kaiser concedes in his brief, this claim is essentially duplicative of his claims for breach of contract…