Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Boykin v. Mora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 17, 2000

274 A.D.2d 441; 711 N.Y.S.2d 904; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7856

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Firestone v. Berrios (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
Greenberg v. Cross Island Industries, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
Doe v. Merck & Co. (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2002)
Deon v. Fortuna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
J.M. v. Rozanov (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2024)
Gershman v. Ahmad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
DELEO, RALPH A. v. COUNTY OF MONROE (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
DeLeo v. County of Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
DeLeo v. County of Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Rodgers v. Duffy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Felton v. Tourtoulis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Schragel v. Juszczyk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Hale v. Saltamacchia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Marcoux v. Farm Service and Supplies, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Parkhill v. Cleary (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated September 27, 1999, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the demand for punitive damages.

*442Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the demand for punitive damages is dismissed.

Punitive damages are available to vindicate a public right only where the actions of the alleged tortfeasor constitute either gross recklessness or intentional, wanton, or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally, or were activated by evil or reprehensible motives (see, Nooger v Jay-Dee Fast Delivery, 251 AD2d 307; Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784). Evidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient by itself to justify the imposition of punitive damages (see, Taylor v Dyer, 190 AD2d 902; Rinaldo v Mashayekhi, 185 AD2d 435; Sweeny v McCormick, 159 AB2d 832). While the defendant’s flight from the scene of the accident might be considered reprehensible, such conduct did not proximately cause any of the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Taylor v Dyer, supra). Thus, the defendant was entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the demand for punitive damages. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.