You are here: / / DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE...
, ,

DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant general contractor was not entitled to dismissal of the punitive damages claim in connection with a high rise fire during demolition. 42 feet of the water standpipe had been removed, stairways were blocked and a no smoking policy was not enforced. One hundred firefighters were injured and two were killed fighting the blaze. The court found that the general contractor (Bovis) could be held liable for punitive damages based upon the acts and omissions of its safety manager, Melofchik. The court further found that the motion court properly considered plaintiffs’ new motion papers which were submitted before Bovis’s reply papers were due and which did not change the substance of the prior papers or prejudice Bovis:

Conduct justifying punitive damages “must manifest spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton'” … . Although issues of fact exist as to whether Bovis’s site safety manger, Jeff Melofchik, was present shortly after the subcontractor removed the 42-foot section of the pipe in November 2006, and whether Melofchik became aware at that point that the segment was part of the standpipe, it is undisputed that Melofchik did not test the standpipe system to ensure that it was operational during the 16-month period from March 2006 (when Bovis became the general contractor on the project) to August 2007 (when the fire occurred). …

An employer may be assessed punitive damages for an employee’s conduct “only where management has authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant,” such that it is complicit in that conduct … . Complicity is evident when “a superior officer in the course of employment orders, participates in, or ratifies outrageous conduct” … . Although Melofchik was not a “superior officer” and nothing suggests that Bovis management authorized or ratified Melofchik’s conduct, an issue of fact exists as to whether management was aware of Melofchik’s incompetence but still “deliberately retained the unfit servant … .”  Borst v Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04679, First Dept 6-26-18

​NEGLIGENCE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DAMAGES (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM STEMMING FROM A HIGH RISE FIRE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ITS SAFETY ENGINEER, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION PAPERS, NEW MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S REPLY PAPERS WERE DUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.
DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN THE POLICE SEARCHED A BAG ON THE FLOOR NEAR HIM, THE KNIFE IN THE BAG SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, JUDGE PROPERLY PROCEEDED TO TRIAL WITHOUT A COMPETENCY EXAM ORDERED BY ANOTHER JUDGE AFTER DEFENDANT REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED (FIRST DEPT).
Rebuttal Evidence Re: a Defense that Was Not Asserted Should Not Have Been Allowed (Harmless Error)/Partial Closure of Courtroom During Testimony of Undercover Officers Proper
WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)
THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR A REAR-END COLLISION; DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED.
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY; PLAINTIFF WAS COLLATERALY ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND COGNITIVE DISORDER BY THE RULING IN HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
BUYERS OF THE HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT; BUT THE BUYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEW YORK’S TAX SCHEME DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE BY... AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX...