From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 2010
71 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2284.

March 2, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 27, 2009, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney Carpenter, LLP, New York (I. Michael Bayda of counsel), for appellant.

Lance A. Landers, New York, for respondents.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


In connection with a pending action for dissolution of defendant Sam-Fay Realty Corp., in which waste and diversion of corporate assets were alleged against plaintiff, defendants, the remaining shareholders, withheld from plaintiff, but not from themselves, a cash distribution from the sale of assets, pending the court's direction. Even accepting the ill will plaintiff imputes to them, defendants' conduct does not meet "the very high threshold of moral culpability" necessary to allow punitive damages, such as "a wanton or reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights" ( Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769, 772 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32239(U).]


Summaries of

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 2010
71 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Case Details

Full title:MYRON ZUCKERMAN, Appellant, v. SYDELL GOLDSTEIN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 2, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1689
894 N.Y.S.2d 748

Citing Cases

Selfo v. Celenza

A conscious or reckless disregard of another's rights is necessary. Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods.…

Lucia v. Weber

A conscious or reckless disregard of another's rights is necessary. Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods,…