Summary
upholding award of punitive damages where defendant, despite having received notice from plaintiff that the smell of gas was emanating from her stove, and in violation of building codes, failed to repair gas pipe, and as a result plaintiff was injured in an explosion
Summary of this case from Marsh v. FeminaOpinion
October 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The record indicated that the plaintiff notified the defendant that there was an odor of gas emanating from the stove for several months after she moved into the apartment owned by the defendant. Despite such notice, and in violation of residential housing codes, the defendant failed to repair the natural gas pipe connecting the stove to the main pipe line, as a result of which there was an explosion in which the plaintiff was injured. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant moved to set aside the punitive damages awarded by the jury on the ground that the facts failed to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was of such a high degree of moral culpability as to warrant a recovery for punitive damages.
The Court of Appeals has stated that "[p]unitive damages are allowable in tort cases * * * so long as the very high threshold of moral culpability is satisfied" (Giblin v. Murphy, 73 N.Y.2d 769, 772). In tort actions, "the defendant's conduct must be so flagrant as to transcend mere carelessness" (Frenya v. Champlain Val. Physicians' Hosp. Med. Ctr., 133 A.D.2d 1000, 1001). "Such conduct need not be intentionally harmful but may consist of actions which constitute willful or wanton negligence or recklessness" (Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196, 204; see, Sweeney v. McCormick, 159 A.D.2d 832, 834). "An act is `wanton and reckless' when done under circumstances showing `heedlessness and an utter disregard' for the `rights and safety of others'" (Sweeney v. McCormick, supra, at 834). We agree with the trial court that the defendant's conduct was so flagrant as to transcend mere carelessness, since he had notice of the hazardous condition for such a significant period of time, and the risk to the tenant was so great. Thus, the imposition of punitive damages was not unreasonable, and it will serve as a deterrent to such culpable conduct in others (see, Minjak Co. v Randolph, 140 A.D.2d 245). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.