Breeze National, Inc. v. CATI, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breeze National, Inc. v. CATI, Inc.

292 A.D.2d 272, 738 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3043

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 272 (Breeze National, Inc. v. CATI, 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

Breeze National, Inc. v. CATI, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 272, 738 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about November 28, 2001, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the balance allegedly owed it under the subcontract (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). There are, moreover, factual issues raised not only as to the adequacy of plaintiff’s performance of the [273]*273contract work but, in addition, as to whether plaintiff, in seeking compensation for contract “extras,” complied with the relevant contract provisions respecting change orders.

Inasmuch as plaintiff in its summary judgment motion requests an award of punitive damages against defendant-respondent, it is appropriate to note that no claim for punitive damages is stated in the complaint and, indeed, it is clear that plaintiff has no claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant-respondent is, at most, one for breach of contract. No tortious conduct is alleged against defendant-respondent, nor is there any allegation of tortious conduct sufficiently egregious and far-reaching in its public consequences as to constitute a predicate for a punitive damage claim (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Clearly this claim is frivolous. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about November 28, 2001, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the balance allegedly owed it under the subcontract (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). There are, moreover, factual issues raised not only as to the adequacy of plaintiff’s performance of the [273]*273contract work but, in addition, as to whether plaintiff, in seeking compensation for contract “extras,” complied with the relevant contract provisions respecting change orders.

Inasmuch as plaintiff in its summary judgment motion requests an award of punitive damages against defendant-respondent, it is appropriate to note that no claim for punitive damages is stated in the complaint and, indeed, it is clear that plaintiff has no claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant-respondent is, at most, one for breach of contract. No tortious conduct is alleged against defendant-respondent, nor is there any allegation of tortious conduct sufficiently egregious and far-reaching in its public consequences as to constitute a predicate for a punitive damage claim (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Clearly this claim is frivolous. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 272, 738 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breeze-national-inc-v-cati-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack