Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Felix SHIFFMAN, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EMPIRE BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, et al., Defendants, CBS Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about May 6, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellants' brief, granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' first, third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses and denied defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion granted to the extent of dismissing the claim for punitive damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
In this action for civil trespass, it is undisputed that defendants gained entry to plaintiff's private medical office by having a reporter pose as a potential patient using a false identity and bogus insurance card. We agree with the motion court that defendants' affirmative defenses based upon consent and implied consent to enter the promises were legally insufficient since consent obtained by misrepresentation or fraud is invalid (see, Restatement 2d, Torts, § 330, Comment g; People v. Thompson, 116 A.D.2d 377, 381, 501 N.Y.S.2d 381) and also agree that the affirmative defense premised upon State and Federal constitutional free speech guarantees is without merit as such guarantees confer no privilege for trespass.
While the motion court properly denied defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action based on plaintiff's alleged failure to plead actual damages, plaintiff's claim for punitive damages should be dismissed. Although plaintiff failed to allege any actual damage to his possessory interest by reason of the reporter's unlawful, yet non-disruptive, entry into his private medical office, nominal damage is always presumed from a trespass (see, Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90, 95, 595 N.Y.S.2d 931, 612 N.E.2d 289; Butler v. Ratner, 173 Misc.2d 783, 662 N.Y.S.2d 696). Punitive damages, however, are not recoverable inasmuch as there is no evidence the complained-of trespass was motivated by malice.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)