Barry v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barry v. City of New York

259 A.D.2d 718, 687 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 718 (Barry v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barry v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 718, 687 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [719]*719Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 8, 1998, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the seventh affirmative defense of the defendant Schiavone Construction Co. and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to include demands for punitive damages against Schiavone Construction Co. as to their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ complaint asserted 10 causes of action. The ninth cause of action asserted a claim for punitive damages. In its answer, the defendant Schiavone Construction Co. (hereinafter Schiavone) asserted as a seventh affirmative defense that the plaintiffs had failed to properly state a claim for punitive damages. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, to amend their complaint to assert claims for punitive damages against Schiavone under their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action and to strike Schiavone’s seventh affirmative defense.

The branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for leave to amend their complaint to include demands for punitive damages against Schiavone as to their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action and to strike Schiavone’s seventh affirmative defense were properly denied by the Supreme Court. The proposed amendments failed to sufficiently set forth a claim for punitive damages (see generally, Romano v Damiano, 242 AD2d 267; Washington Ave. Assocs. v Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [719]*719Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 8, 1998, as denied those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the seventh affirmative defense of the defendant Schiavone Construction Co. and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to include demands for punitive damages against Schiavone Construction Co. as to their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ complaint asserted 10 causes of action. The ninth cause of action asserted a claim for punitive damages. In its answer, the defendant Schiavone Construction Co. (hereinafter Schiavone) asserted as a seventh affirmative defense that the plaintiffs had failed to properly state a claim for punitive damages. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, to amend their complaint to assert claims for punitive damages against Schiavone under their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action and to strike Schiavone’s seventh affirmative defense.

The branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for leave to amend their complaint to include demands for punitive damages against Schiavone as to their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action and to strike Schiavone’s seventh affirmative defense were properly denied by the Supreme Court. The proposed amendments failed to sufficiently set forth a claim for punitive damages (see generally, Romano v Damiano, 242 AD2d 267; Washington Ave. Assocs. v Euclid Equip., 229 AD2d 486). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 718, 687 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack