{"id":81,"date":"2019-12-03T01:54:43","date_gmt":"2019-12-03T01:54:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ny-personal-injury-law\/?post_type=chapter&p=81"},"modified":"2019-12-17T19:31:14","modified_gmt":"2019-12-17T19:31:14","slug":"punitive-damages","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ny-personal-injury-law\/chapter\/punitive-damages\/","title":{"raw":"Punitive Damages","rendered":"Punitive Damages"},"content":{"raw":"PUNITIVE DAMAGES <\/strong>\r\n\r\nMarinaccio v. Town<\/em> 20 N.Y.3d 506 (2013)\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.leagle.com\/decision\/innyco20130321289<\/a> (February 24, 2019)\r\n\r\n\u201cThe question presented by this case is whether the evidence was sufficient to find defendant liable for punitive damages for intentional diversion of storm water onto plaintiff's property, which caused extensive damage to his land, constituting the torts of trespass and nuisance. We find that although the injury was considerable and the tortious acts undeniably intentional, the evidence in this case was insufficient for an award of punitive damages.\u201d\r\n\r\nDupree v. Giugliano<\/em>, 20 N.Y.3d 921, 924 (2012)\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.leagle.com\/decision\/innyco20121129383<\/a> (February 24, 2019\r\n\r\nIn a medical malpractice case, \u201c\u2026punitive damages were improperly charged as a matter of law. The standard for an award of punitive damages is that a defendant manifest evil or malicious conduct beyond any breach of professional duty.\u201d\r\n\r\nDrabczyk v. Fisher Controls <\/em>938 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/drabczyk-v-fisher-controls-intl<\/a> (February 24, 2019)\r\n\r\nThe Fourth Department upheld the trial court decision to charge punitive damages, but overturned the jury finding based on insufficient evidence to make that finding.\r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

PUNITIVE DAMAGES <\/strong><\/p>\n

Marinaccio v. Town<\/em> 20 N.Y.3d 506 (2013)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.leagle.com\/decision\/innyco20130321289<\/a> (February 24, 2019)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe question presented by this case is whether the evidence was sufficient to find defendant liable for punitive damages for intentional diversion of storm water onto plaintiff’s property, which caused extensive damage to his land, constituting the torts of trespass and nuisance. We find that although the injury was considerable and the tortious acts undeniably intentional, the evidence in this case was insufficient for an award of punitive damages.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dupree v. Giugliano<\/em>, 20 N.Y.3d 921, 924 (2012)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.leagle.com\/decision\/innyco20121129383<\/a> (February 24, 2019<\/p>\n

In a medical malpractice case, \u201c\u2026punitive damages were improperly charged as a matter of law. The standard for an award of punitive damages is that a defendant manifest evil or malicious conduct beyond any breach of professional duty.\u201d<\/p>\n

Drabczyk v. Fisher Controls <\/em>938 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/drabczyk-v-fisher-controls-intl<\/a> (February 24, 2019)<\/p>\n

The Fourth Department upheld the trial court decision to charge punitive damages, but overturned the jury finding based on insufficient evidence to make that finding.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Original<\/div>