Uniland Development Co. v. Home Insurance

97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20810
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1983·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Barring any allegation in the complaint seeking to “vindicate a public right or deter morally culpable conduct, punitive damages are not recoverable” (Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., 48 NY2d 906, 907). Allegations of willful and intentional refusal to pay (under terms of the policy) are insufficient (Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co., supra; Reifenstein v Allstate Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 715). Therefore, the fourth cause of action seeking punitive damages must be dismissed. The fifth cause of action, seeking attorney’s fees, is similarly infirm in the absence of a valid claim for punitive damages (Bruno v Home Mut. Ins. Co., 91 AD2d 1169; Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O’Nuts Corp., 86 AD2d 315, 321; see, also, Sukup v State of New York, 19 NY2d 519, 522). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — breach of contract.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Uniland Development Co. v. Home Insurance, 97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

97 A.D.2d 973 (Uniland Development Co. v. Home Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Piduch v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
124 A.D.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
City of Niagara Falls v. Hartford Fire Insurance
116 A.D.2d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Parks v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance
105 A.D.2d 1068 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)