Kaplan v. Sparks
Citation | 192 A.D.2d 1119,596 N.Y.S.2d 279 |
Parties | Joseph A. KAPLAN, as Limited Administrator of the Estate of Joseph J. Kaplan, and Elizabeth Kaplan, appellants, v. Paul SPARKS and William Pfohl Trucking Corp., Respondents. |
Decision Date | 14 April 1993 |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Stasia Zoladz Vogel, Derby, for appellant.
O'Shea, Reynolds, Napier, Cummings & Kirby by Gerard O'Connor, Buffalo, for respondents.
Wyssling, Schwan & Montgomery by Gerard O'Connor, Buffalo, for respondents.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and PINE, FALLON, DOERR and BOEHM, JJ.
In this wrongful death action, plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim for, inter alia, punitive damages and a cause of action for loss of consortium. That motion was denied. Absent prejudice or surprise, leave to amend should be freely granted (CPLR 3025[b]; see, e.g., Kusak v. Allstate Ins. Co., 190 A.D.2d 1050, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1003).
With respect to plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, defendants have demonstrated neither prejudice nor surprise. Moreover, plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages does not constitute an independent cause of action (see, Knibbs v. Wagner, 14 A.D.2d 987, 222 N.Y.S.2d 469; Gill v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 284 App.Div. 36, 129 N.Y.S.2d 288), but rather rests on the same factual circumstances as those forming the basis of the original complaint. It will be for the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury to find that defendants' conduct was so wanton and reckless that an award of punitive damages would be justified (see, Sweeney v. McCormick, 159 A.D.2d 832, 552 N.Y.S.2d 707; PJI 2:278). Thus, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to assert allegations supporting a claim for punitive damages.
Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for loss of consortium. There is no recovery for loss of consortium in a wrongful death action (Liff v. Schildkrout, 49 N.Y.2d 622, 633-634, 427 N.Y.S.2d 746, 404 N.E.2d 1288, rearg. denied sub nom. Grant v. Guidotti, 49 N.Y.2d 1048, 429 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 407 N.E.2d 483; see also, EPTL 5-4.3; Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Auth., 77 N.Y.2d 663, 667-668, 569 N.Y.S.2d 915, 572 N.E.2d 598).
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Archer-Vail v. LHV Precast Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 986 [1991] ; cf. Dumesnil v. Proctor & Schwartz, 199 A.D.2d 869, 870–871, 606 N.Y.S.2d 394 [1993] ; Kaplan v. Sparks, 192 A.D.2d 1119, 1119–1120, 596 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1993] ). Next, contrary to plaintiff's contention, Supreme Court properly dismissed the claims alleging violations of ......
-
Dever v. Devito
...[and first amended] complaint’ ” ( Acker v. Garson, 306 A.D.2d 609, 610, 759 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2003], quoting Kaplan v. Sparks, 192 A.D.2d 1119, 1120, 596 N.Y.S.2d 279 [1993] ), we find no evidence that defendants would be surprised or prejudiced by amending the complaint in this regard. Contra......
-
Abate v. Cnty. of Erie
...ECSO. Moreover, because "[t]here is no recovery for loss of consortium in a wrongful death action" ( Kaplan v. Sparks , 192 A.D.2d 1119, 1120, 596 N.Y.S.2d 279 [4th Dept. 1993] ), we further agree with defendants that the County is entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause o......
-
Aspro Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. New York Housing Authority
... ... cause of action arises out of the same underlying facts" (Nissenbaum v. Ferazzoli, 171 A.D.2d 654, 655, 567 N.Y.S.2d 135; see also, Kaplan v. Sparks, 192 A.D.2d 1119, ... ...