From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coldwell Bk. Residential Real Est. v. Eustice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1993
190 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 22, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.).


Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant entered into a listing agreement with the plaintiff which gave the plaintiff the exclusive right to sell his house. Subsequently, the plaintiff sold the defendant's home. The defendant, however, refused to pay the plaintiff the commission due under their commission agreement, alleging that the plaintiff acted against his best interests by also representing the purchasers without his consent.

In his counterclaims the defendant alleged causes of actions sounding in fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff acted as both his agent and the purchasers' agent without his consent and acted against his best interest by allowing the purchasers to delay the closing date. Moreover, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff made various misrepresentations to induce him to enter into the contract. Further, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's conduct was part of a continuing fraudulent scheme aimed at the general public which demonstrated a high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty. Thus, the defendant sought punitive damages under each of his counterclaims.

An award of punitive damages is justified where the defendant's fraudulent conduct is gross, wanton, or deliberate and demonstrates a high degree of moral culpability (see, Walker v Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405; V.J.V. Transp. Corp. v Santiago, 173 A.D.2d 537, 538). However, the plaintiff's acts did not rise to the level of moral culpability warranting punitive damages. Accordingly, the defendant's demands for punitive damages were properly stricken. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Coldwell Bk. Residential Real Est. v. Eustice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1993
190 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Coldwell Bk. Residential Real Est. v. Eustice

Case Details

Full title:COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 22, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 54

Citing Cases

Schlaifer Nance Co. v. Estate of Warhol

Under New York law, punitive damages are appropriate in a fraud action when the proof establishes "gross,…

Oei v. Citibank, N.A.

Punitive damages are recoverable in a fraud action "where the defendant's fraudulent conduct is gross,…