OPINION OF THE COURT
Order entered April 3, 1997 (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), modified by granting that portion of defendants’ motion seeking to
Even when viewed in the favorable light to which it is entitled on a motion to dismiss, the complaint fails to support a viable claim for punitive damages. Conspicuously absent from either the four comers of the complaint or the evidentiary material presented below (see, Guggenheimer v Ginzberg, 43 NY2d 268, 274-275) are any facts evidencing that the defendants’ conduct — in failing to disclose a presale repair to the plaintiffs Saab automobile — was part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally (see, New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 315-316; Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 613). Plaintiffs general assertion that he was “only one of many members of the public who entered the defendant [dealer’s] showroom to purchase a ‘new’ car” is hardly sufficient to sustain a finding that defendants’ conduct constituted a public wrong. In this regard, the situation at bar is clearly distinguishable from that presented in BMW of N. Am. v Gore (517 US 559), where an automobile manufacturer was shown to have adopted a nationwide policy of nondisclosure of presale repairs, a policy implemented in connection with nearly 1,000 new car sales. To the extent that plaintiff now seeks to rely on the provisions of General Business Law § 396-p (5) — governing dealer disclosure of presale repairs of new motor vehicles — we note that no violation of this statute was pleaded in the complaint or shown in the record.
McCooe, J. P., and Freedman, J., concur.