Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.).
Dismissal of plaintiff's compensatory damage claims against the insurers was proper because they have recovered the full amount of judgment in the underlying action and the attorneys' fees incurred by counsel substituted as a result of the insurer's conflict of interest (see, Lavanant v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 164 A.D.2d 73; Lavanant v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 176 A.D.2d 618, affd 79 N.Y.2d 623). Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages are not sustainable absent evidence of conduct demonstrating such a high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty as to imply criminal indifference to civil obligations which is aimed at the public, generally (Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 N.Y.2d 603; Belco Petroleum Corp. v. AIG Oil Rig, 164 A.D.2d 583), a burden plaintiffs failed to meet.
Plaintiffs also failed to establish a prima facie case of malpractice against the attorneys assigned by the insurer, because they submitted no proof of actual damages proximately caused by purported attorney negligence (see, Zarin v. Reid Priest, 184 A.D.2d 385, 387-388). Their claims of conflict of interest, even if a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, would not support a separate cause of action for punitive damages (Brown v. Samalin Bock, 155 A.D.2d 407; Mosseri v. Zimmerman Zimmerman, 114 A.D.2d 338).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.