Blatman v. Paribas North America, Inc.

198 A.D.2d 172, 604 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10979
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 23, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 172 (Blatman v. Paribas North America, Inc.) 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
Blatman v. Paribas North America, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 172, 604 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered February 12, 1993, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the fifth, seventh and eighth causes of action in the plaintiffs amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action brought to recover for wrongful discharge, the fifth cause of action was properly dismissed, since it seeks recovery of the same bonus payment for which an accounting was sought in the fourth cause of action, and, therefore, fails to state a separate viable claim for relief (Rosini v Cunanan, 132 Misc 2d 246, 248-249, mod on other grounds 130 AD2d 956). The seventh cause of action was properly dismissed as an improper attempt by the plaintiff to evade the rule that there is no cause of action in New York for abusive and wrongful discharge by casting that cause of action in terms of a tort or intentional infliction of emotional stress (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 303). The eighth cause of action seeking to recover $3 million in punitive damages as against the defendants for their alleged wrongful discharge was properly dismissed, since no separate cause of action for [173]*173punitive damages is recognized in New York (Rock v Sear-Brown Assocs., 136 AD2d 894, 895).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Related

Mariani v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
982 F. Supp. 267 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Tramontozzi v. St. Francis College
232 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D.2d 172, 604 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blatman-v-paribas-north-america-inc-nyappdiv-1993.