Brandenberg v. Cross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brandenberg v. Cross

78 A.D.2d 534, 431 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12847

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 534 (Brandenberg v. Cross) 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

Brandenberg v. Cross, 78 A.D.2d 534, 431 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a hospital insurance contract and for declaratory relief, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 14, 1979, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the provision denying defendant’s motion, the following: "except that the third cause of action of the complaint is dismissed.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The allegations set forth in the third cause of action do not demonstrate that defendant, an insurer, has engaged in a fraudulent scheme evincing moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty so as to imply a criminal indifference to its civil obligations. Also, a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a separate cause of action for pleading purposes (see Sanfilippo v Metropolitan Life Ins. [535]*535Co., 74 AD2d 600). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a hospital insurance contract and for declaratory relief, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 14, 1979, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the provision denying defendant’s motion, the following: "except that the third cause of action of the complaint is dismissed.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The allegations set forth in the third cause of action do not demonstrate that defendant, an insurer, has engaged in a fraudulent scheme evincing moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty so as to imply a criminal indifference to its civil obligations. Also, a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a separate cause of action for pleading purposes (see Sanfilippo v Metropolitan Life Ins. [535]*535Co., 74 AD2d 600). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 534, 431 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandenberg-v-cross-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack