STEGICH v. SAAB CARS USA INC (1998)

Order entered April 3, 1997 (Marcy S. Friedman, J.) modified by granting that portion of defendants' motion seeking to strike plaintiff's demand for punitive damages;  as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs to defendants-appellants.

Even when viewed in the favorable light to which it is entitled on a motion to dismiss, the complaint fails to support a viable claim for punitive damages.   Conspicuously absent from either the four corners of the complaint or the evidentiary material presented below (see, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 274-275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17), are any facts evidencing that the defendants' conduct-in failing to disclose a pre-sale repair to the plaintiff's Saab automobile-was part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally (see, New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 315-316, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763;  Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 N.Y.2d 603, 613, 612 N.Y.S.2d 339, 634 N.E.2d 940).   Plaintiff's general assertion that he was “only one of many members of the public who entered the defendant [dealer's] showroom to purchase a ‘new’ car”, is hardly sufficient to sustain a finding that defendants' conduct constituted a public wrong.   In this regard, the situation at bar is clearly distinguishable from that presented in BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore (517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809), where an automobile manufacturer was shown to have adopted a nationwide policy of nondisclosure of pre-sale repairs, a policy implemented in connection with nearly 1,000 new car sales.   To the extent that plaintiff now seeks to rely on the provisions of General Business Law § 396-p(5)-governing dealer disclosure of pre-sale repairs of new motor vehicles-we note that no violation of this statute was pleaded in the complaint or shown in the record.

PER CURIAM.