National Broadcasting Co. v. Fire Craft Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Broadcasting Co. v. Fire Craft Services, Inc.

287 A.D.2d 408, 731 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 408 (National Broadcasting Co. v. Fire Craft Services, 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

National Broadcasting Co. v. Fire Craft Services, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 408, 731 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2000, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant-appellant John Gallin & Son, Inc. seeking, inter alia, dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint alleging, inter alia, a separate cause of action for punitive damages, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant-appellant’s motion insofar as to strike those portions of the second amended complaint seeking punitive damages as against it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This action arises out of property damage to plaintiff’s premises as a result of fire caused by electrical failure, which occurred while defendant-appellant’s subcontractor was performing construction work in the premises’ elevators. Because dust produced by said subcontractor’s drilling was capable of triggering the fire alarm system, the system was disabled by the company responsible for servicing it. Plaintiff alleges causes of action in contract and tort stemming from defendant-appellant’s alleged failure to provide a fire watch for the period during which the alarm system was disabled.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint demands punitive damages against defendant-appellant for its negligent performance of the parties’ contract. However, an award of punitive damages must be premised on conduct particularly egregious in [409]*409nature directed both at the plaintiff and the general public (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Ins. Socy., 83 NY2d 603), and it is plain that defendant-appellant’s conduct, as alleged, negligent though it may have been, falls well short of this standard (see, Seynaeve v Hudson Moving & Stor., 261 AD2d 168). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2000, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant-appellant John Gallin & Son, Inc. seeking, inter alia, dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint alleging, inter alia, a separate cause of action for punitive damages, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant-appellant’s motion insofar as to strike those portions of the second amended complaint seeking punitive damages as against it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This action arises out of property damage to plaintiff’s premises as a result of fire caused by electrical failure, which occurred while defendant-appellant’s subcontractor was performing construction work in the premises’ elevators. Because dust produced by said subcontractor’s drilling was capable of triggering the fire alarm system, the system was disabled by the company responsible for servicing it. Plaintiff alleges causes of action in contract and tort stemming from defendant-appellant’s alleged failure to provide a fire watch for the period during which the alarm system was disabled.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint demands punitive damages against defendant-appellant for its negligent performance of the parties’ contract. However, an award of punitive damages must be premised on conduct particularly egregious in [409]*409nature directed both at the plaintiff and the general public (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Ins. Socy., 83 NY2d 603), and it is plain that defendant-appellant’s conduct, as alleged, negligent though it may have been, falls well short of this standard (see, Seynaeve v Hudson Moving & Stor., 261 AD2d 168). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 408, 731 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-broadcasting-co-v-fire-craft-services-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack