Beir v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beir v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

110 A.D.2d 529, 488 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48450

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

DecidedApril 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 529 (Beir v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.) 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

Beir v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 110 A.D.2d 529, 488 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

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 NY2d 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 AD2d 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 AD2d 764.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.

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

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 NY2d 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 AD2d 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 AD2d 764.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.

Thomas J. McAdam Jr., McAdam Electric Company, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, McAdam Pension Plan, and McAdam Electric Profit Sharing Plan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. And Clifford B. Murray v. Harold Tyson and Midlantic National Bank, Martin S. Wilson, Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Professional Benefit Consultants, Inc., McAdam Electric Company, Thomas J. McDonough Jr., Scott A. Conesky, Theresa Conesky, Edward H. Kay, Regina A. Kay, Margaret White, Elmer J. Parsons, Jr., Nancy L. Parsons, John J. Sykes, Jr., Eleanor Downer, S. Whitney Downer, Lucille Robertson, Gwenn Graves Hamilton, Robert Brown, Beverly A. Brown and Mary L. Brown. Appeal of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., in No. 89-5250. Appeal of Midlantic National Bank/south in No. 89-5251, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, No. 89-5251

896 F.2d 750 (Third Circuit, 1990)

McAdam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

896 F.2d 750 (Third Circuit, 1990)

Wallach Marine Corp. v. Donzi Marine Corp.

675 F. Supp. 838 (S.D. New York, 1987)

Amsouth Bank, N.A. v. Spigener

505 So. 2d 1030 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 529, 488 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beir-v-manufacturers-hanover-trust-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack