Opinion
December 1, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We conclude that the denial of the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for punitive damages was a proper exercise of discretion. A demand for punitive damages does not amount to a separate cause of action for pleading purposes (see, e.g., Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 90; Fox v. Issler, 77 A.D.2d 860; Schwed v Turoff, 73 A.D.2d 615). Rather, punitive damages constitute "an element of the single total claim for damages" (Gill v Montgomery Ward Co., 284 App. Div. 36, 41; see, Mastro Jewelry Corp. v. St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 854). Therefore, an amendment to the pleadings to add such a cause of action is precluded. As this court stated in Perricone v. City of New York ( 96 A.D.2d 531, 533, affd in part and appeal dismissed in part 62 N.Y.2d 661), "to permit a new and separate claim for punitive damages violates the rule that such damages may not be sought by way of a separate cause of action" (see also, Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Hambly, 51 A.D.2d 790; cf. Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987).
Notwithstanding this defect, the plaintiff's effort to amend her complaint fails on another ground. The courts may examine the sufficiency of the pleadings on a motion to amend to determine if a claim is patently deficient and decide the issue as a threshold matter to avoid the possibility of needless litigation (see, Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 82 A.D.2d 350, 362, affd 56 N.Y.2d 332; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Shickler, 96 A.D.2d 926). We find that the proposed amended complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to support an award of punitive damages (see, Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 404). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.