From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruno v. Home Mutual Ins. Co. of Binghamton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 21, 1983
91 A.D.2d 1169 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

January 21, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Kuszynski, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs are the insured under a homeowner's policy which was issued by defendant and was in effect when plaintiff's home was burglarized in August, 1980. Defendant refused to pay the amount of the claimed loss. Plaintiffs' first cause of action seeks $2,125.92 for damages to the dwelling and also seeks $39,954.60 for personal property alleged to be either damaged or missing. The first cause of action also asserts a claim for $20,000 in counsel fees. Plaintiffs' second cause of action seeks damages of $500,000 for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress and, additionally, asks for punitive damages of $1,000,000 and counsel fees of $500,000. Special Term denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' second cause of action and so much of plaintiffs' first cause of action as sought counsel fees. We affirm. Although the showing made by defendant in response to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment consists largely of inadmissible hearsay, the motion nonetheless was properly denied since what was taken in the burglary, and the value thereof, are known only to plaintiffs. "[I]f facts are peculiarly within the control or possession of the moving party and not available to the other party, the motion should be denied" ( Matter of Mead v. First Trust Deposit Co., 60 A.D.2d 71, 78). Stripped of its otherwise unsupported language, plaintiffs' second cause of action does nothing more than reassert the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs have failed to offer evidentiary facts sufficient to demonstrate that defendant's refusal to pay the claim is so egregious as to justify a claim for emotional injury (see Fischer v. Maloney, 43 N.Y.2d 553; O'Rourke v. Pawling Sav. Bank, 80 A.D.2d 847, app dsmd 54 N.Y.2d 641; Nestlerode v. Federal Ins. Co., 66 A.D.2d 504, mot for lv to app den 48 N.Y.2d 604) or so morally culpable as to support an award of punitive damages (see Hubbell v. Trans World Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 50 N.Y.2d 899; Halpin v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 48 N.Y.2d 906; Janina Travel Bur. v. Kalison, 72 A.D.2d 916, 917). It follows, of course, that plaintiffs may not be awarded counsel fees (see Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp., 86 A.D.2d 315; see, also, Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12).


Summaries of

Bruno v. Home Mutual Ins. Co. of Binghamton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 21, 1983
91 A.D.2d 1169 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Bruno v. Home Mutual Ins. Co. of Binghamton

Case Details

Full title:JAMES J. BRUNO et al., Appellants, v. HOME MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 21, 1983

Citations

91 A.D.2d 1169 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Welch v. Grant Development Co.

Central School Dist. v Flintkote Co., 56 A.D.2d 642; cf. Potter v Gilbert, 130 App. Div. 632, affd 196 N.Y.…

Uniland Development Company v. Home Ins. Co.

Therefore, the fourth cause of action seeking punitive damages must be dismissed. The fifth cause of action,…