Plishner v. Citibank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plishner v. Citibank, N. A.

260 A.D.2d 240, 688 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3968

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

DecidedApril 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 240 (Plishner v. Citibank, N. 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

Plishner v. Citibank, N. A., 260 A.D.2d 240, 688 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered December 12, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages, and denied defendant’s motion to strike the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was properly dismissed since the complained of conduct by defendant was not directed at the public generally and was not shown to have been sufficiently egregious to warrant exaction of such damages (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Plaintiff’s procedural objections to the motion court’s consideration of defendant’s summary judgment motion are not preserved for our review. Defendant’s arguments on its cross appeal, that summary judgment should have been granted with respect to the actual damages claim and that the note of issue should have been stricken, are without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Saxe 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 (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered December 12, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages, and denied defendant’s motion to strike the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was properly dismissed since the complained of conduct by defendant was not directed at the public generally and was not shown to have been sufficiently egregious to warrant exaction of such damages (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Plaintiff’s procedural objections to the motion court’s consideration of defendant’s summary judgment motion are not preserved for our review. Defendant’s arguments on its cross appeal, that summary judgment should have been granted with respect to the actual damages claim and that the note of issue should have been stricken, are without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 240, 688 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plishner-v-citibank-n-a-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack