From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manolas v. 303 West 42nd Street Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1991
173 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

setting aside jury award of punitive damages that was 80 times that awarded for compensatory damages

Summary of this case from Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical

Opinion

May 16, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.).


Plaintiff was injured following an altercation at defendant's adult entertainment business. The jury determined, inter alia, that defendant's employees pushed plaintiff through a window, causing physical injury, but that they were not acting within the scope of their employment when they caused plaintiff's injuries. It was also determined that defendant maliciously prosecuted plaintiff, and that plaintiff sustained $2,500 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages as a result.

After trial, defendant moved to set aside the punitive damage award as grossly excessive. The trial court, determining that the award was not so grossly excessive as to be a result of the jury's passion (Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 N.Y.2d 500), declined to exercise its discretion to interfere with the award. We disagree. The jury awarded punitive damages in an amount almost eighty times that awarded for compensatory damages. It further appears that the amount of punitive damages was actuated by the jury's passion as a result of plaintiff's attorney's improper and prejudicial comments throughout the trial. Indeed, plaintiff's counsel incited the jury's passion by attempting to try this case as one against the entire adult entertainment industry, and not merely against defendant.

Although plaintiff claims that defendant's employees were acting within the scope of their employment as a matter of law, he never moved for a directed verdict on this issue and thus conceded that it presented a question for the jury. (Miller v Miller, 68 N.Y.2d 871; Riviello v Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 303.) The record reveals that the jury's conclusion with regard to "scope of employment" was rational. (See, Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc., 125 AD 559.)

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Manolas v. 303 West 42nd Street Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1991
173 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

setting aside jury award of punitive damages that was 80 times that awarded for compensatory damages

Summary of this case from Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical
Case details for

Manolas v. 303 West 42nd Street Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANDREAS T. MANOLAS, Respondent-Appellant, v. 303 WEST 42ND STREET…

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

Date published: May 16, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 701

Citing Cases

Minichiello v. Supper Club

Similarly, plaintiff's counsel elicited testimony about an alleged physical attack by an assistant to Cortez…

Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical

However, punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to the wrong committed. See Chlystun v. Kent,…