128 A.D.2d 1007 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1987
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Estes, J.), entered February 24, 1986, upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff.
The issue before us is whether the jury verdict rendered against defendant is supported by sufficient evidence. We find that the evidence supports the verdict.
County Court directed a verdict on liability in the causes of action alleging ejectment and trespass. A third cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability was submitted to the jury. In addition, the jury was submitted the question of damages on all causes of action and, also, on the issue of whether defendant’s acts constituted wanton and reckless behavior or were malicious so as to justify the imposition of punitive damages. The jury awarded plaintiff $300 for ejectment, $1,000 for pain and suffering, aggravation and mental distress, $200 for trespass, $5,000 as punitive damages and $250 for breach of the warranty of habitability. The court, pursuant to RPAPL 853, trebled the damages for ejectment and pain and suffering.
The record also supports the award of $1,000 in damages for pain, suffering and mental distress. The testimony of plaintiff and her father verified the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff and the aggravation to her ankle injury attributable to the search for a new lodging place caused by her unlawful eviction by defendant.
Finally, the jury award of $5,000 in punitive damages must stand. There was found here a flagrant, unlawful interference by defendant with plaintiff’s right to enjoy and possess her leased premises. This finding is supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant moved plaintiff’s possessions without her permission from the apartment she had leased to her. This was done contrary to plaintiff’s express written instructions to the contrary. Such actions justify the award of punitive damages (see, Giblin v Murphy, 97 AD2d 668, lv dismissed 62 NY2d 943; Fisher v Queens Park Realty Corp., 41 AD2d 547).
Defendant’s contention that the award of treble damages was improper absent physical force or violence is without merit (see, Maracina v Shirrmeister, 105 AD2d 672; Sam & Mary Hous. Corp. v Jo/Sal Mkt. Corp., 100 AD2d 901, affd 64 NY2d 1107).
Judgment affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.