Deon v. Fortuna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deon v. Fortuna

283 A.D.2d 388, 724 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4723

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 7, 2001·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In an action 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, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 13, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.

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

The plaintiff Richard Deon and his daughter, the infant plaintiff Louise Deon, were injured when their automobile was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant. Sobriety tests administered at the scene revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .10% and he subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated.

[389] The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Evidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient by itself to justify the imposition of punitive damages (see, Boykin v Mora, 274 AD2d 441, 442; Sweeney v McCormick, 159 AD2d 832, 834). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the circumstances of this case did not demonstrate that the defendant acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages (see, Boykin v Mora, supra; Sweeney v McCormick, supra). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 13, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.

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

The plaintiff Richard Deon and his daughter, the infant plaintiff Louise Deon, were injured when their automobile was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant. Sobriety tests administered at the scene revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .10% and he subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated.

[389] The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Evidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient by itself to justify the imposition of punitive damages (see, Boykin v Mora, 274 AD2d 441, 442; Sweeney v McCormick, 159 AD2d 832, 834). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the circumstances of this case did not demonstrate that the defendant acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages (see, Boykin v Mora, supra; Sweeney v McCormick, supra). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Deon v. Fortuna, 283 A.D.2d 388, 724 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 388 (Deon v. Fortuna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related