Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A.

56 A.D.2d 610, 867 N.Y.S.2d 350

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 610 (Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A.) 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

Giannotti v. Mercedes Benz U.S.A., 56 A.D.2d 610, 867 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated November 15, 2007, which granted the motion [611]*611of the defendants Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLC, DaimlerChrysler AG, Mercedes Benz of Greenwich, and Competition Imports, Inc., in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondents established, as a matter of law, that their conduct did not warrant the imposition of punitive damages (see Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204 [1990]; Roginsky v Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 378 F2d 832, 843 [1967]; West v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 973 F Supp 385, 389 [1997]; see also Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168, 171 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 850 [1990]). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.E, Lifson, Eng and Chambers, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), dated November 15, 2007, which granted the motion [611]*611of the defendants Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLC, DaimlerChrysler AG, Mercedes Benz of Greenwich, and Competition Imports, Inc., in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondents established, as a matter of law, that their conduct did not warrant the imposition of punitive damages (see Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204 [1990]; Roginsky v Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 378 F2d 832, 843 [1967]; West v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 973 F Supp 385, 389 [1997]; see also Lugo v LJN Toys, 146 AD2d 168, 171 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 850 [1990]). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.E, Lifson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 610, 867 N.Y.S.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giannotti-v-mercedes-benz-usa-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack