BURKHART v. Lucian Visone, and Lakefront Construction, Inc., Defendants. (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum:  Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of her brother, Brian Burkhart (decedent), a developmentally disabled individual who resided in a group home owned and operated by defendant People, Inc. (People), seeking damages for injuries sustained by decedent that were allegedly caused by, inter alia, the negligence of People and three of its employees, defendant Elisa Smith, defendant Katelynne Coleman and defendant Amy Mazurkiewicz (collectively, defendants).  The complaint alleges two instances of negligence involving People and its employees.  The first instance relates to the allegedly inadequate response of Smith and Mazurkiewicz to seizures suffered by decedent on January 12, 2008.  The second instance relates to an incident on January 17, 2008 in which decedent, on an outing at a local movie theater under the supervision of Coleman, was allowed to wander from the theater and onto a busy nearby roadway, where he was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Lucian Visone and owned by defendant Lakefront Construction, Inc. Decedent allegedly suffered serious injuries as a result of that accident.  Decedent subsequently passed away in 2015, and there is no indication in the record that plaintiff has sought leave to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for wrongful death.

Defendants moved for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against them.  We conclude that, contrary to plaintiff's contention, Supreme Court properly granted that branch of defendants' motion.  “[T]he standard for imposing punitive damages is a strict one and punitive damages will be awarded only in exceptional cases” (Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence, 20 N.Y.3d 506, 511, 964 N.Y.S.2d 69, 986 N.E.2d 903 [2013], rearg denied 21 N.Y.3d 976, 970 N.Y.S.2d 744, 992 N.E.2d 1088 [2013];  see Sample v. Yokel, 94 A.D.3d 1413, 1416, 943 N.Y.S.2d 694 [4th Dept. 2012] ).  In this case, the alleged misconduct on the part of defendants that plaintiff contends warrant punitive damages is either unrelated to the injuries sustained by decedent (see Deleo v. County of Monroe, 130 A.D.3d 1549, 1551, 14 N.Y.S.3d 261 [4th Dept. 2015];  Hale v. Saltamacchia, 28 A.D.3d 715, 715, 814 N.Y.S.2d 218 [2d Dept. 2006];  O'Connor v. Kuzmicki, 14 A.D.3d 498, 499, 788 N.Y.S.2d 414 [2d Dept. 2005] ), or does not manifest the requisite spite, malice, improper motive, or conscious and deliberate disregard for the interests of others to justify an award of punitive damages (see Marinaccio, 20 N.Y.3d at 511, 964 N.Y.S.2d 69, 986 N.E.2d 903;  Dupree v. Giugliano, 20 N.Y.3d 921, 924, 958 N.Y.S.2d 312, 982 N.E.2d 74 [2012], rearg denied 20 N.Y.3d 1045, 961 N.Y.S.2d 373, 985 N.E.2d 137 [2013] ).

In light of our determination, we reject plaintiff's contention that the court erred in granting, in part, that aspect of defendants' motion to strike various allegations in plaintiff's bill of particulars, inasmuch as those allegations were relevant only to her claim for punitive damages (see Irving v. Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 121 A.D.3d 1046, 1048, 995 N.Y.S.2d 184 [2d Dept. 2014];  Aronis v. TLC Vision Ctrs., Inc., 49 A.D.3d 576, 578, 853 N.Y.S.2d 621 [2d Dept. 2008];  Van Caloen v. Poglinco, 214 A.D.2d 555, 557, 625 N.Y.S.2d 245 [2d Dept. 1995] ).