Muniz v Mount Sinai Hosp. of Queens, 2012 NY Slip Op 00192 (2nd Dept., 2012)
However, questions of law which appear on the face of the record and which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture may be raised for the first time on appeal (see Williams v Naylor, 64 AD3d 588; Matter of 200 Cent. Ave., LLC v Board of Assessors, 56 AD3d 679, 680; Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730, 732-733), and such a question of law is presented here. "New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Instead, [a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action'" (Randi A.J. v Long Is. Surgi-Ctr., 46 AD3d 74, 80, quoting Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 83 NY2d 603, 616; see Aronis v TLC Vision Ctrs., Inc., 49 AD3d 576, 577; Yong Wen Mo v Gee Ming Chan, 17 AD3d 356, 359). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of MSHQ's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action to recover punitive damages insofar as asserted against it. For the same reason, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the QLIMG defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action to recover punitive damages insofar as asserted against them.
Polanco v Lewis Flushing Corp, 2012 NY Slip Op 00197 (2nd Dept., 2012)
As the plaintiff correctly concedes, the sole argument he raises on appeal was not advanced before the Supreme Court. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his argument does not present a pure question of law that could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d 1010). Accordingly, his argument may not be reached for the first time on appeal (see NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1043, 1044; Pekich v James E. Lawrence, Inc., 38 AD3d 632, 633).
bruteforcelawyer.com 