Borkowski v. Borkowski

Decided July 6, 1976

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1976-07-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“gross, wanton, or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Island Transportation Corp., Action Sa v. Marc Rich & Co Inc

““[i]t is not essential, as the Appellate Division stated, that punitive damages be allowed in a fraud case only where the acts had been aimed at the public generally.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 503 F. Supp. 1137 - Roy Export Co. Establishment v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 492 F. Supp. 364 - Banco Nacional De Costa Rica v. Bremar Holdings Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-07-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Smith v. Lightning Bolt Productions, Inc. (1988), Roy Export Co. Establishment v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (1982)

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Memorandum. Order. of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs.

¶2It is not essential, as the Appellate Division stated, that punitive damages be allowed in a fraud case only where the acts had been aimed at the public generally. Nevertheless, the proof in this case does not establish such gross, wanton, or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct to a degree sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. At least the Appellate Division was entitled to so conclude. (See, generally, Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 404-405.)

¶3Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

¶4Order affirmed.