| Felton v Tourtoulis |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06472 [87 AD3d 983] |
| September 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Elaine Felton, Appellant, v George W. Tourtoulis et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Martin, Fallon & MullÉ, Huntington, N.Y. (Richard C. MullÉ of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered July1, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) to dismiss the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against thedefendant Melissa A. Tourtoulis.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss theplaintiff's demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendant Melissa A.Tourtoulis is denied.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Melissa A. Tourtoulis (hereinafter the defendantdriver) was driving while intoxicated and failed to stop at a stop sign, causing a two-car motorvehicle collision in which the plaintiff was injured. In her complaint, the plaintiff, inter alia,demanded an award of punitive damages from the defendant driver.
The Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages insofar asasserted against the defendant driver. "Punitive damages are available to vindicate a public rightonly where the actions of the alleged tortfeasor constitute either gross recklessness or intentional,wanton, or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally, or were activated by evil orreprehensible motives" (Boykin v Mora, 274 AD2d 441, 442 [2000]). At this stage of thelitigation, it is premature to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient tosupport a claim that the defendant driver acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an awardof punitive damages (see Wilner vAllstate Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 155, 167 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court shouldhave denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) todismiss the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendantdriver. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.