HUNTER v. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. (2007)

 Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages “where[, as here,] the proposed amendment is palpably without merit” (Thone v. Crown Equip. Corp., 27 A.D.3d 723, 724, 810 N.Y.S.2d 925).  “ ‘Punitive damages are warranted where the conduct of the party being held liable evidences a high degree of moral culpability ․, or where the conduct constitutes willful or wanton negligence or recklessness' ” (Hale v. Odd Fellow & Rebekah Health Care Facility, 302 A.D.2d 948, 949, 755 N.Y.S.2d 164;  see Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196, 203-204, 551 N.Y.S.2d 481, 550 N.E.2d 930;  Gauger v. Ghaffari, 8 A.D.3d 968, 778 N.Y.S.2d 346;  Bixler v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 309 A.D.2d 1285, 1286, 765 N.Y.S.2d 396).   Here, the alleged conduct of defendant Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG & E), i.e., its failure to inform plaintiff of the presence of dangerous dogs at a residence (see Hunter v. Galland, 35 A.D.3d 1152, 825 N.Y.S.2d 880), does not constitute willful or wanton negligence or recklessness.   In view of our determination, we do not address plaintiff's further contention that the court erred in granting that part of RG & E's cross motion for a protective order.   Plaintiff concedes that the documents at issue are discoverable only in the event that he is allowed to seek punitive damages.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: