Spiegel v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spiegel v. Goodman

204 A.D.2d 430, 614 N.Y.S.2d 179

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

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 430 (Spiegel v. Goodman) 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

Spiegel v. Goodman, 204 A.D.2d 430, 614 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction and abuse of process, (1) the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 17, 1991, which, inter alia, awarded them only $750 in alternative living accommodations, and vacated the award of punitive damages to Rudy Spiegel and Andrew Spiegel, and (2) the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as found in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

[431]*431Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting the provisions thereof which granted the plaintiffs Alexander Spiegel and Elizabeth Spiegel punitive damages; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Punitive damages should only be awarded when there is a showing that a defendant’s actions are heinous or reprehensible (see, Lyke v Anderson, 147 AD2d 18). In the instant case, there was no showing of malice on the part of the defendants in the procurement of the invalid warrant of eviction; thus, a basis for awarding punitive damages was not established (see, Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp. v Northwest Airlines, 124 AD2d 711; Brandt v de Kosenko, 57 Misc 2d 574).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction and abuse of process, (1) the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated October 17, 1991, which, inter alia, awarded them only $750 in alternative living accommodations, and vacated the award of punitive damages to Rudy Spiegel and Andrew Spiegel, and (2) the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same judgment as found in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

[431]*431Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting the provisions thereof which granted the plaintiffs Alexander Spiegel and Elizabeth Spiegel punitive damages; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Punitive damages should only be awarded when there is a showing that a defendant’s actions are heinous or reprehensible (see, Lyke v Anderson, 147 AD2d 18). In the instant case, there was no showing of malice on the part of the defendants in the procurement of the invalid warrant of eviction; thus, a basis for awarding punitive damages was not established (see, Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp. v Northwest Airlines, 124 AD2d 711; Brandt v de Kosenko, 57 Misc 2d 574).

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 430, 614 N.Y.S.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spiegel-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack