Irondequoit Bay Pure Waters District v. Nalews, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Irondequoit Bay Pure Waters District v. Nalews, Inc.

97 A.D.2d 965, 468 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20792

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 965 (Irondequoit Bay Pure Waters District v. Nalews, 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

Irondequoit Bay Pure Waters District v. Nalews, Inc., 97 A.D.2d 965, 468 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We note that a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a separate cause of action for pleading purposes. In any event, the complaint in this breach of contract action is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. It contains no evidentiary allegations of ultimate facts that the defendant insurance company either acted fraudulently or engaged in morally culpable conduct in its dealings with the general public (see Uniland Dev. Co. v Home Ins. Co., 97 AD2d 972; see, also, Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354, 358; Catalogue Serv. v Insurance Co., 74 AD2d 837). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — dismiss cause of action.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We note that a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a separate cause of action for pleading purposes. In any event, the complaint in this breach of contract action is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. It contains no evidentiary allegations of ultimate facts that the defendant insurance company either acted fraudulently or engaged in morally culpable conduct in its dealings with the general public (see Uniland Dev. Co. v Home Ins. Co., 97 AD2d 972; see, also, Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354, 358; Catalogue Serv. v Insurance Co., 74 AD2d 837). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — dismiss cause of action.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 965, 468 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irondequoit-bay-pure-waters-district-v-nalews-inc-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack