Dumesnil v. Proctor and Schwartz Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1993
• Parties: Ronald DUMESNIL, Respondent, v. PROCTOR AND SCHWARTZ INC. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 394

606 N.Y.S.2d 394

199 A.D.2d 869

Ronald DUMESNIL, Respondent, v. PROCTOR AND SCHWARTZ INC. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

(And a Third-Party Action.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Dec. 30, 1993.

Pentak, Brown & Tobin (Thomas W. Brown, of counsel), Albany, for Proctor and Schwartz Inc., appellant.

Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case, Blackmore & Napierski (Susan Di Bella Harvey, of counsel), Albany, for Unitex Inc., appellant.

Bouck, Holloway, Kiernan and Casey (Thomas J. Johnson, of counsel), Albany, for Fibretic Systems Inc., appellant.

Seymour Fox, P.C. (Bonnie P. Chavin, of counsel), Troy, for respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and CARDONA, WHITE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.

WHITE, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered February 18, 1992 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint.

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging strict products liability, negligence and breach of warranty causes of action to recover damages for the severe personal injuries he sustained when his left hand and forearm became enmeshed in an industrial machine that lacked safety guards. Following discovery, plaintiff moved for leave to serve a second amended complaint to include a claim for punitive damages, not as a separate cause of action but as an item of damage with respect to his causes of action against defendants (see, Sylvester v. Stephens, 148 A.D.2d 523, 539 N.Y.S.2d 27). Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal followed.

"It is firmly established that leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025(b) is to be freely given in the exercise of the trial court's discretion, provided that there is no prejudice to the nonmoving party and that the amendment is not plainly lacking in merit * * * " (Sabol & Rice Inc. v. Poughkeepsie Galleria Co., 175 A.D.2d 555, 556, 572 N.Y.S.2d 811 [citations omitted]. Prejudice in this context means that the nonmoving party has been hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position (see, Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 444 N.Y.S.2d 571, 429 N.E.2d 90).

Our review of the record discloses that defendants did not demonstrate that they will be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. Thus, we will focus on their contention that the amendment lacks merit.

Punitive damages may be awarded when a defendant's conduct is so reckless or wantonly negligent as to be the equivalent of a conscious disregard of the rights of others (see, Rinaldo v. Mashayekhi, 185 A.D.2d 435, 585 N.Y.S.2d 615) and may be recovered in a negligence action as well as a strict products liability action, at least insofar as it is founded on a failure to warn (see, Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196, 204, 551 N.Y.S.2d 481, 550 N.E.2d 930; Wittman v. Gilson, 70 N.Y.2d 970, 972, 525 N.Y.S.2d 795, 520 N.E.2d 514).

Plaintiff predicates his claim of entitlement to punitive damages on defendants' failure to equip the machine with...