## Facts

- Kenneth Heller was injured when he tripped and fell while exiting a freight elevator in a Manhattan parking garage, sustaining multiple fractures and undergoing multiple surgeries.
- He sued the garage owners/operators for negligence in the maintenance, operation, and repair of the elevator door.
- A jury returned a substantial verdict for Heller; the trial court conditionally reduced the award and imposed a monetary sanction against him for misconduct.
- On a prior appeal, the appellate court ordered a new trial on liability and damages due to serious misconduct by Heller and his trial counsel, while sustaining the sanction.
- After the case was returned for retrial, Heller moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages, asserting that defendants routinely allowed customers to ride the freight elevator in violation of building and safety regulations.
- The trial court granted leave to amend; defendants appealed from that order.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion under CPLR 3025(b) in granting leave to amend, years into the litigation and after an appellate-ordered retrial, to add a punitive damages claim.
2. Whether the proposed punitive damages allegations were legally sufficient under New York’s heightened standard for punitive damages.
3. Whether the timing and posture of the amendment would cause undue prejudice to defendants.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order granting leave to amend.
- The court denied Heller’s motion to amend the complaint to assert punitive damages.
- The court held the proposed punitive damages claim was totally devoid of merit and legally insufficient.
- The court further concluded that allowing the amendment at that stage would constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend is generally to be freely given, but may be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or would cause prejudice or surprise.
- Punitive damages in New York tort cases require conduct demonstrating a high degree of moral turpitude or wanton dishonesty implying criminal indifference to civil obligations; ordinary negligence, even with regulatory violations, is typically insufficient.
- A proposed amendment based on facts already known and previously litigated, offered long after commencement and on the eve of a retrial, may be denied where it materially changes the case and increases exposure in a way that prejudices the opposing party.

## Conclusion

The appellate court rejected a late-stage attempt to add punitive damages after an appellate-ordered retrial, holding that the allegations did not meet New York’s stringent punitive damages standard and that permitting the amendment would improperly expand the litigation and prejudice defendants.


Heller v. Provenzano, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 20, 756 N.Y.S.2d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2003)