Diarra v. NJS Carpentry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diarra v. NJS Carpentry

138 A.D.3d 586, 28 N.Y.S.3d 614

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

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket916N 114010/05

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 586 (Diarra v. NJS Carpentry) 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

Diarra v. NJS Carpentry, 138 A.D.3d 586, 28 N.Y.S.3d 614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

According to a police report, at the time defendant Peter Ferentinos’s vehicle rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle at an intersection, defendant had a blood alcohol level of 0.27% and was visibly intoxicated. In addition, Ferentinos testified during his deposition that on the evening of the accident, he consumed alcohol in New Jersey and then drove to Manhattan, where he collided with plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant claims to have no recollection of the color or model of the car he struck, or anything the police asked or said to him at the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s proposed claim for punitive damages is not devoid of merit (see Silvin v Karwoski, 242 AD2d 945 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Bondi v Bambrick, 308 AD2d 330 [1st Dept 2003]; Chiara v Dernago, 128 AD3d 999, 1003 [2d Dept 2015]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend does not warrant denial of the motion inasmuch as there is no indication that defendants are prejudiced (see Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d 364, 365 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

According to a police report, at the time defendant Peter Ferentinos’s vehicle rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle at an intersection, defendant had a blood alcohol level of 0.27% and was visibly intoxicated. In addition, Ferentinos testified during his deposition that on the evening of the accident, he consumed alcohol in New Jersey and then drove to Manhattan, where he collided with plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant claims to have no recollection of the color or model of the car he struck, or anything the police asked or said to him at the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s proposed claim for punitive damages is not devoid of merit (see Silvin v Karwoski, 242 AD2d 945 [4th Dept 1997]; see also Bondi v Bambrick, 308 AD2d 330 [1st Dept 2003]; Chiara v Dernago, 128 AD3d 999, 1003 [2d Dept 2015]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend does not warrant denial of the motion inasmuch as there is no indication that defendants are prejudiced (see Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d 364, 365 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 586, 28 N.Y.S.3d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diarra-v-njs-carpentry-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack