Opinion
16680 Index No. 190378/18 Case No. 2021–04690
11-17-2022
Romeo MAFFEI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, J–M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP, New York (Anna Hwang of counsel), for appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.
Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP, New York (Anna Hwang of counsel), for appellant.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.
Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Rodriguez, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered on or about June 4, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendant J–M Manufacturing Company (JMM) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's punitive damages demand, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Defendant is a former distributor of asbestos cement pipe (ACP). Plaintiff, a commercial contractor, alleges that he was exposed to asbestos when he worked with ACP sold by defendant. In support of his contention for punitive damages, plaintiff asserts that defendant concealed the hazardous nature of its product by failing to affix warning labels to all the pipes it distributed.
Despite plaintiff's contentions, the demand for punitive damages should have been stricken. "Even where there is gross negligence, punitive damages are awarded only in ‘singularly rare cases’ such as cases involving an improper state of mind or malice or cases involving wrongdoing to the public" ( Anonymous v. Streitferdt, 172 A.D.2d 440, 441, 568 N.Y.S.2d 946 [1st Dept. 1991], quoting Rand & Paseka Mfg. Co. v. Holmes Protection Inc., 130 A.D.2d 429, 431, 515 N.Y.S.2d 468 [1st Dept. 1987], lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 615, 524 N.Y.S.2d 677, 519 N.E.2d 623 [1988] ). This is not such a singularly rare case (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 225 A.D.2d 414, 415, 640 N.Y.S.2d 488 [1st Dept. 1996], affd 89 N.Y.2d 955, 655 N.Y.S.2d 855, 678 N.E.2d 467 [1997] ; see also Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 92 A.D.3d 1259, 938 N.Y.S.2d 715 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 803, 2012 WL 1591304 [2012] ). There is no evidence of a concerted effort to suppress information about the dangers of asbestos. To the contrary, the product came with multiple warnings that it could not safely be worked with using dry saws or the like. To the extent that those warnings were not present on each piece of pipe might evidence negligence, it does not evidence malice (compare Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 154 A.D.3d 139, 62 N.Y.S.3d 11 [1st Dept. 2017] ).