Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

71 A.D.3d 407, 894 N.Y.S.2d 748

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 407 (Zuckerman v. Goldstein) 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

Zuckerman v. Goldstein, 71 A.D.3d 407, 894 N.Y.S.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 27, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In connection with a pending action for dissolution of defendant Sam-Fay Realty Corp., in which waste and diversion of corporate assets were alleged against plaintiff, defendants, the remaining shareholders, withheld from plaintiff, but not from themselves, a cash distribution from the sale of assets, pending the court’s direction. Even accepting the ill will plaintiff imputes to them, defendants’ conduct does not meet “the very high threshold of moral culpability” necessary to allow punitive damages, such as “a wanton or reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights” (Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769, 772 [1988] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 322390J).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 27, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In connection with a pending action for dissolution of defendant Sam-Fay Realty Corp., in which waste and diversion of corporate assets were alleged against plaintiff, defendants, the remaining shareholders, withheld from plaintiff, but not from themselves, a cash distribution from the sale of assets, pending the court’s direction. Even accepting the ill will plaintiff imputes to them, defendants’ conduct does not meet “the very high threshold of moral culpability” necessary to allow punitive damages, such as “a wanton or reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights” (Giblin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769, 772 [1988] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, McGuire, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 322390J).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 407, 894 N.Y.S.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuckerman-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack