Tutino v. 425 Park Avenue Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tutino v. 425 Park Avenue Co.

188 A.D.2d 434

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 434 (Tutino v. 425 Park Avenue Co.) 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

Tutino v. 425 Park Avenue Co., 188 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 26, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ motion, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she was robbed in an elevator while leaving her office, that defendants knew of the danger because of robberies and other assaults in the building, and that defendants acted with reckless disregard in not taking steps to improve security inside the building.

While punitive damages can be awarded for the reckless creation of injury or danger (see, Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204), the evidence adduced by plaintiff is insufficient to raise an issue of recklessness. Assuming the truth of plaintiffs averments, defendants’ conduct, at worst, can only be characterized as negligent. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 26, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ motion, and otherwise affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she was robbed in an elevator while leaving her office, that defendants knew of the danger because of robberies and other assaults in the building, and that defendants acted with reckless disregard in not taking steps to improve security inside the building.

While punitive damages can be awarded for the reckless creation of injury or danger (see, Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204), the evidence adduced by plaintiff is insufficient to raise an issue of recklessness. Assuming the truth of plaintiffs averments, defendants’ conduct, at worst, can only be characterized as negligent. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tutino-v-425-park-avenue-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack