From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borkowski v. Borkowski

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 6, 1976
39 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1976)

Summary

In Borkowski v. Borkowski, 39 N.Y.2d 982, 387 N.Y.S.2d 233, 355 N.E.2d 287 (1976), in a memorandum decision, the court noted that punitive damages could be recovered in a fraud action without showing public harm, if the proof establishes "gross, wanton or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct."

Summary of this case from Purdy v. Consumers Distributing Co., Ltd.

Opinion

Argued June 8, 1976

Decided July 6, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ABRAHAM J. MULTER, J.

Alex V. Myslicki, Jr., for appellant.

Robert A. Straniere for respondents.


MEMORANDUM. Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs.

It is not essential, as the Appellate Division stated, that punitive damages be allowed in a fraud case only where the acts had been aimed at the public generally. Nevertheless, the proof in this case does not establish such gross, wanton, or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct to a degree sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. At least the Appellate Division was entitled to so conclude. (See, generally, Walker v Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 404-405.)

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Borkowski v. Borkowski

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 6, 1976
39 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1976)

In Borkowski v. Borkowski, 39 N.Y.2d 982, 387 N.Y.S.2d 233, 355 N.E.2d 287 (1976), in a memorandum decision, the court noted that punitive damages could be recovered in a fraud action without showing public harm, if the proof establishes "gross, wanton or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct."

Summary of this case from Purdy v. Consumers Distributing Co., Ltd.

In Borkowski v. Borkowski, 39 N.Y.2d 982, 387 N.Y.S.2d 233, 355 N.E.2d 287 (Ct.App. 1976) the Court of Appeals said: "It is not essential, as the Appellate Division stated, that punitive damages be allowed in a fraud case only where the acts had been aimed at the public generally.

Summary of this case from Rush v. Oppenheimer Co., Inc.

In Borkowski, the action was brought to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, which we observed in Royal Globe, was "a far cry from an action for breach of contract" (86 A.D.2d, at p 320).

Summary of this case from Samovar of Russia v. Generali

In Borkowski v Borkowski (39 N.Y.2d 982, affg 48 A.D.2d 846) the Court of Appeals specifically ruled that "[i]t is not essential * * * that punitive damages be allowed in a fraud case only where the acts had been aimed at the public generally" (39 N.Y.2d 983).

Summary of this case from Greenspan v. Commercial Ins. Co.
Case details for

Borkowski v. Borkowski

Case Details

Full title:ALICE BORKOWSKI, Appellant, v. ARTHUR BORKOWSKI et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 6, 1976

Citations

39 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1976)
387 N.Y.S.2d 233
355 N.E.2d 287

Citing Cases

Tillery v. Lynn

Defendant also argues that as a matter of New York law punitive damages for defendant's alleged fraud may not…

Seitzman v. Hudson River Associates

The court explained further: "The complaint is deemed to demand punitive damages, which are recoverable only…