Vinlis Construction Co. v. Roreck

New York Court of Appeals

Vinlis Construction Co. v. Roreck

262 N.E.2d 215, 27 N.Y.2d 687, 314 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1172

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 262 N.E.2d 215 (Vinlis Construction Co. v. Roreck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vinlis Construction Co. v. Roreck, 262 N.E.2d 215, 27 N.Y.2d 687, 314 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1172 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Since the allegations of the complaint do not assert a fraud “aimed at the public generally” (Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N Y 2d 401, 405; see also, James v. Powell, 19 N Y 2d 249, 260), plaintiffs are not entitled to exemplary damages. The record contains all of the proof required to make a final disposition of this case. Based on the plaintiffs’ uncontradicted evidence, the net amount of compensatory damages is $74,942.67. In addition, the faithless trustee should be surcharged in the amount of $9,316, the salary paid him in the course of his stewardship. Plaintiffs are also entitled to interest from January 1,1955, as directed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the order should be modified by striking the award of exemplary damages and reducing the net amount of compensatory damages to $84,258.67.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Gibson concur; Judge Breitel dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum, in which Judge Jasen concurs: Insufficient basis was shown to establish error and for that reason I would affirm generally. I would note agreement, however, with the majority that punitive damages were not allowable. But in [690]*690the confused state of this record and the briefs it is not possible for me to determine whether the several items of damages do not include an offset for the punitive damages.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

Memorandum. Since the allegations of the complaint do not assert a fraud “aimed at the public generally” (Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N Y 2d 401, 405; see also, James v. Powell, 19 N Y 2d 249, 260), plaintiffs are not entitled to exemplary damages. The record contains all of the proof required to make a final disposition of this case. Based on the plaintiffs’ uncontradicted evidence, the net amount of compensatory damages is $74,942.67. In addition, the faithless trustee should be surcharged in the amount of $9,316, the salary paid him in the course of his stewardship. Plaintiffs are also entitled to interest from January 1,1955, as directed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the order should be modified by striking the award of exemplary damages and reducing the net amount of compensatory damages to $84,258.67.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Gibson concur; Judge Breitel dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum, in which Judge Jasen concurs: Insufficient basis was shown to establish error and for that reason I would affirm generally. I would note agreement, however, with the majority that punitive damages were not allowable. But in [690]*690the confused state of this record and the briefs it is not possible for me to determine whether the several items of damages do not include an offset for the punitive damages.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor v. John C. Bierwirth, Robert G. Freese, Carl A. Paladino, Joseph W. Ullman, Lillian E. Baldissard, Rita v. Hafner, Anthony Pancella, Jr., Kathleen T. Chew and Benjamin L. Crews, Intervenors-Defendants. Robert J. Lawrence v. Grumman Corporation Pension Plan, Grumman Corporation Employee Investment Plan, Carl A. Paladino, John C. Bierwirth, Robert G. Freese, Robert W. Bradshaw, Howard J. Dunn and Grumman Corporation, Carl A. Paladino, John C. Bierwirth and Robert G. Freese

754 F.2d 1049 (Second Circuit, 1985)

Rupert v. Sellers

65 A.D.2d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross

563 F.2d 1057 (Second Circuit, 1977)

Kantor v. Kalnick

58 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Prince v. Gurvitz

57 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Turski v. Chiesa

89 Misc. 2d 443 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)

H. Novinson & Co. v. City of New York

53 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Herz v. Thornwood Acres "D", Inc.

86 Misc. 53 (Justice Court of Town of Bedford, 1976)

Borkowski v. Borkowski

48 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 N.E.2d 215, 27 N.Y.2d 687, 314 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinlis-construction-co-v-roreck-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack