New York Punitive Damages Laws: Standards and Limits (2026)

New York allows punitive damages as a common-law remedy, but only for misconduct the Court of Appeals calls exceptional: conduct that is not simply intentional but shows "a high degree of moral turpitude," such as acting maliciously, wantonly, or with reckless or wanton disregard of safety or rights (Ross v. Louise Wise Services, Inc., 2007). No general New York statute sets a cap on the amount or a standard for the award; the rules come mainly from the courts, with statutes governing death cases, estates, government defendants and particular claims.

Three further points shape New York cases: the burden of proof differs among the Appellate Division departments, punitive damages may not be assessed against the State or its political subdivisions under the Court of Claims Act waiver of immunity, and New York public policy generally bars insurance coverage of a punitive award. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers New York state law on punitive damages in civil cases: the Court of Appeals and Appellate Division decisions named below, Estates, Powers and Trusts Law 5-4.3 and 11-3.2, and the other New York statutes named below. It does not cover compensatory damages (for malpractice claims see New York medical malpractice law), wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see New York wrongful death law), federal claims, or every New York statute that authorizes punitive, exemplary or multiplied damages for a particular claim.

Does New York allow punitive damages?

Yes. New York courts have long allowed punitive damages, which New York decisions and statutes also call exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals explained the basis in Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401 (1961):

"Punitive or exemplary damages have been allowed in cases where the wrong complained of is morally culpable, or is actuated by evil and reprehensible motives, not only to punish the defendant but to deter him, as well as others who might otherwise be so prompted, from indulging in similar conduct in the future."

The court restated the purpose in Ross v. Louise Wise Services, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 478 (2007): "Punitive damages are not to compensate the injured party but rather to punish the tortfeasor and to deter this wrongdoer and others similarly situated from indulging in the same conduct in the future."

There is no general punitive damages statute in New York. The remedy is shaped by case law, and statutes step in for specific situations: deaths, claims against a wrongdoer's estate, government employees, and claims under particular laws such as the nursing home patient statute and the whistleblower law.

What must be proven

The Court of Appeals set out the conduct standard in Ross:

"Punitive damages are permitted when the defendant's wrongdoing is not simply intentional but 'evince[s] a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrate[s] such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations'"

The court added that "the misconduct must be exceptional," quoting its earlier decision in Sharapata v. Town of Islip: "as when the wrongdoer has acted maliciously, wantonly, or with a recklessness that betokens an improper motive or vindictiveness ... or has engaged in outrageous or oppressive intentional misconduct or with reckless or wanton disregard of safety or rights."

Contract claims. The bar is higher for a breach of contract claim: the Court of Appeals restated in Hobish v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. (2025) that punitive damages on a contract claim "are available only where 'the fraud, aimed at the public generally, is gross and involves high moral culpability,' or when it 'evince[s] a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrate[s] such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations.'"

Ross shows the standard in operation. The court concluded: "Because we cannot conclude from the record that the initial concealment was motivated by malice so as to warrant punitive damages, or that these damages would deter future reprehensible conduct, we limit plaintiffs' potential recovery to compensatory damages."

Ordinary negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, stated in Munoz v. Puretz, 301 A.D.2d 382 (1st Dept 2003), that "punitive damages are not available for ordinary negligence." It described what a plaintiff must show instead: "egregious and willful conduct" that is "morally culpable, or is actuated by evil and reprehensible motives."

Burden of proof: it depends on the department

The burden of proof comes from decisions of the Appellate Division, and its departments do not all agree.

• First Department. In Munoz v. Puretz (2003), the court stated that a plaintiff must show the required conduct by "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence."
• Second Department. In Randi A.J. v. Long Island Surgi-Center, 46 A.D.3d 74 (2d Dept 2007), the court held that the trial court "erred in failing to charge the jury that the standard of proof regarding the imposition of punitive damages was clear and convincing evidence." It did so while noting that "a different view has been expressed by other courts as to the requisite evidentiary standard," citing a 1993 Appellate Division decision, Matter of Seventh Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 190 A.D.2d 1068, which held that the trial court "properly instructed the jury that the evidentiary standard for proving entitlement to punitive damages is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence," and a 1997 federal decision.

A New York case may therefore be tried under a different burden depending on where it is heard.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in New York?

New York has no general statute capping punitive damages, no ratio to compensatory damages and no dollar ceiling that applies across claims. The size of an award is reviewed by the courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on punitive awards also apply to New York verdicts; the punitive damages hub explains them.

Some statutes that authorize punitive damages for one kind of claim set their own limits:

• Deceptive business practices (General Business Law 349(h)): the Court of Appeals held in Hobish v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., 43 N.Y.3d 442 (2025), "that punitive damages for section 349 (h) claims are limited to the treble damages provided by the statute." Under section 349(h), the court may increase the award "to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to one thousand dollars" if it finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the section.
• Housing discrimination before the Division of Human Rights: punitive damages "in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars, to the person aggrieved by such practice" (Executive Law 297(4)(c)(iv)).
• Tenant security deposits: a person found to have willfully violated the deposit rules "shall be liable for punitive damages of up to twice the amount of the deposit or advance" (General Obligations Law 7-107(8) for rent stabilized units; 7-108(1-a)(g) for other units).
• Housing discrimination based on domestic violence status: compensatory and punitive damages, "with such punitive damages not exceeding two thousand dollars for each offense" (Real Property Law 227-d(2)(b)(1)).
• Personal allowance funds in family or residential care: on a showing that the funds were intentionally misappropriated or withheld, "additional punitive damages in an amount equal to twice the amount misappropriated or withheld" (Social Services Law 131-o(3)).
• Confidentiality of abortion referral reports: for a wilful violation, "exemplary damages of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than ten thousand dollars for each violation" (General Business Law 394-e(2)).

For pleading, CPLR 3017(c) provides that in an action to recover damages for personal injuries or wrongful death, the complaint "shall contain a prayer for general relief but shall not state the amount of damages to which the pleader deems himself entitled."

Does New York take a share of the award?

New York has no general split-recovery statute directing any part of a punitive award to the state or to a public fund. None of the statutes for particular claims named on this page does so either, including the nursing home patient action in Public Health Law 2801-d.

Punitive damages in New York wrongful death cases

New York's wrongful death statute allows punitive damages on one condition. Estates, Powers and Trusts Law 5-4.3(b) provides:

"Where the death of the decedent occurs on or after September first, nineteen hundred eighty-two, in addition to damages and expenses recoverable under paragraph (a) above, punitive damages may be awarded if such damages would have been recoverable had the decedent survived."

The test, then, is whether the conduct would have supported punitive damages in the decedent's own injury claim. Paragraph (a) of the same section measures the compensatory award as "fair and just compensation for the pecuniary injuries resulting from the decedent's death to the persons for whose benefit the action is brought." Who may sue and the filing deadlines are covered on the New York wrongful death page.

When the wrongdoer has died

A claim does not end because the person responsible dies, but punitive damages do. EPTL 11-3.2(a)(1) provides:

"No cause of action for injury to person or property is lost because of the death of the person liable for the injury. For any injury, an action may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the decedent, but punitive damages shall not be awarded nor penalties adjudged in any such action brought to recover damages for personal injury. This section extends to a cause of action for wrongfully causing death and an action therefor may be brought or continued against the personal representative of the person liable therefor."

When it is the injured person who dies, subsection (b) governs a personal injury action brought or continued by that person's representative. Its bar on punitive damages applies only "where the death occurs on or before August thirty-first, nineteen hundred eighty-two."

Government defendants and public employees

The State and its political subdivisions. In Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332 (1982), the Court of Appeals held "that the waiver of sovereign immunity effected by section 8 of the Court of Claims Act does not permit punitive damages to be assessed against the State or its political subdivisions." The Court of Appeals applied that rule to a statutory multiplier in Matter of Rosbaugh (Town of Lodi), 43 N.Y.3d 567 (2025), holding that treble damages under RPAPL 861 for cutting trees on another's land are punitive in nature and so "may not be imposed against the Town."

Indemnifying public employees. When a public employee is held liable for punitive damages, New York statutes generally keep the employer from paying them. Public Officers Law 18(4)(c) provides that "nothing in this subdivision shall authorize a public entity to indemnify or save harmless an employee with respect to punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties," with a proviso for certain non-willful violations of a prior court order, judgment, consent decree or stipulation. Education Law 6205(g), in the City University provisions, has a parallel rule barring the City of New York from indemnifying an employee for punitive or exemplary damages, and Highway Law 12(d) provides that "nothing herein shall authorize the state to indemnify or save harmless with respect to punitive or exemplary damages."

Police officers. A few statutes run the other way. General Municipal Law 50-j(6)(a) lets any city, county, town, village, authority or agency that adopts a local law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation indemnify its police officers against judgments "for punitive or exemplary damages, arising out of a negligent act or other tort of such police officer committed while in the proper discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment." Nassau County must defend its police officers and indemnify them against judgments "for damages, including punitive or exemplary damages, arising out of a negligent act or other tort of such police officer committed while in the proper discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment" (General Municipal Law 50-l). Section 50-n sets the same rule for Nassau County peace officers, sheriffs, under-sheriffs and deputy sheriffs. Suffolk County must do the same for its police and peace officers "upon discretionary adoption of a local law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation" (General Municipal Law 50-m(1)).

Civil Rights Law 85. A recent section, Civil Rights Law 85, creates an action against any person who, under color of law, deprives someone of rights secured by the United States Constitution. It lets a court award "punitive damages where the violation is found to be malicious, wanton, willful, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights" in actions under that section. The section applies retroactively to January 1, 2025, but for a federal constitutional violation that occurred between that date and the section's effective date, "the only monetary damages that shall be available pursuant to this section for such constitutional violation are nominal and compensatory damages."

Employer liability for an employee's conduct

The Court of Appeals adopted a complicity rule in Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, N.A., 67 N.Y.2d 369 (1986):

"punitive damages can be imposed on an employer for the intentional wrongdoing of its employees only where management has authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant"

Does insurance cover punitive damages in New York?

Generally no. In Zurich Insurance Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 309 (1994), the Court of Appeals wrote: "We recently affirmed the continuing and unabated force of our public policy precluding indemnification for punitive damages in Soto v State Farm Ins. Co." It also concluded that "New York choice of law principles require application of New York's public policy."

The decision did not end in a blanket denial of coverage. For one of the underlying lawsuits, the court concluded that "it appears that the damages awarded in the Simon action also had a compensatory purpose and plaintiff must indemnify its insured for them," and it declared that award covered.

Statutes that authorize punitive damages for specific claims

Several New York statutes write punitive or exemplary damages into a particular cause of action:

• Nursing homes. In a patient's action against a residential health care facility, "where the deprivation of any such right or benefit is found to have been willful or in reckless disregard of the lawful rights of the patient, punitive damages may be assessed" (Public Health Law 2801-d(2)).
• Whistleblowers. Labor Law 740(5)(g) lists among the available remedies "the payment by the employer of punitive damages, if the violation was willful, malicious or wanton."
• Human Rights Law. Executive Law 297 allows punitive damages "in cases of employment discrimination related to private employers and housing discrimination only" in court actions under subdivision 9, and the Division of Human Rights may award punitive damages in private-employer employment discrimination cases, with the $10,000 limit in housing cases and the other claim-specific limits noted above.
• Drug sellers and dram shops. General Obligations Law 11-103 gives a person injured by an unlawful sale of a controlled substance "a right to recover actual and exemplary damages," and the right of action survives the death of either party. General Obligations Law 11-101, the dram shop law, likewise provides that "such person shall have a right to recover actual and exemplary damages." For the rest of a crash claim, see New York car accident laws.
• Anti-SLAPP counterclaims. Under Civil Rights Law 70-a(1)(c), a person who sues to recover damages over an action involving public petition and participation may recover punitive damages only on an additional showing that the suit was commenced or continued for the sole purpose of harassing, intimidating or punishing, or otherwise maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or association rights. For defamation suits more generally, see New York defamation laws.

New York punitive damages at a glance

Recent changes

The main recent change is Civil Rights Law 85, described above, enacted in the 2026 budget legislation (Senate Bill S9005C, signed May 27, 2026, as chapter 55), which authorizes punitive damages for malicious, wanton, willful or reckless violations in actions under that section and applies retroactively to January 1, 2025, with only nominal and compensatory damages for violations between that date and its effective date. In 2025, the Court of Appeals held that punitive damages on a General Business Law 349(h) claim are limited to the statute's treble damages (Hobish) and that treble damages under RPAPL 861 cannot be imposed on a municipality (Rosbaugh), both described above.

Under federal law, punitive damages are generally taxable income even when they arise from a physical injury (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)); the personal injury settlement amounts guide covers taxes.

Related pages

• Punitive damages laws by state
• New York wrongful death law
• New York medical malpractice law
• New York car accident laws
• New York defamation laws

This article provides general legal information about New York punitive damages law as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in New York.

Last updated: 2026-10-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does New York allow punitive damages?

Yes, as a common-law remedy for exceptional misconduct. Under Ross v. Louise Wise Services (2007), the wrongdoing must be more than intentional; it must evince a high degree of moral turpitude, such as malicious or wanton conduct or reckless or wanton disregard of safety or rights.

Is there a cap on punitive damages in New York?

New York has no general statute capping punitive damages. Some statutes that authorize them for a particular claim set their own limits, such as the $10,000 limit on a Division of Human Rights award in housing discrimination cases under Executive Law 297 and up to twice the deposit for a willful security-deposit violation under General Obligations Law 7-107 and 7-108. The Court of Appeals held in Hobish v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. (2025) that punitive damages on a General Business Law 349(h) claim are limited to the treble damages that statute provides. Courts can still review an award, and federal due-process limits apply.

What is the burden of proof for punitive damages in New York?

It depends on the court. The First Department (Munoz v. Puretz, 2003) and the Second Department (Randi A.J. v. Long Island Surgi-Center, 2007) require clear and convincing evidence; the Second Department acknowledged that other courts have expressed a different view, and a 1993 Appellate Division decision approved a preponderance of the evidence instruction.

Are punitive damages available for negligence in New York?

Under First Department case law, not for ordinary negligence. That court held in Munoz v. Puretz (2003) that punitive damages are not available for ordinary negligence; the conduct must be egregious and willful, morally culpable, or actuated by evil and reprehensible motives.

Are punitive damages available in a New York wrongful death case?

Yes, in some cases. EPTL 5-4.3(b) provides that, where the death occurs on or after September 1, 1982, punitive damages may be awarded if they would have been recoverable had the decedent survived. EPTL 11-3.2(a)(1) bars punitive damages in a personal injury action against the personal representative of a deceased wrongdoer.

Are punitive damages available against New York State or a city?

The Court of Appeals held in Sharapata v. Town of Islip (1982) that the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 8 of the Court of Claims Act does not permit punitive damages to be assessed against the State or its political subdivisions.

Does insurance cover punitive damages in New York?

Generally no. In Zurich v. Shearson Lehman Hutton (1994), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed New York public policy precluding indemnification for punitive damages, but it required the insurer to cover one award because those damages also had a compensatory purpose.

Does New York take part of a punitive damages award?

New York has no general split-recovery statute directing any part of a punitive award to the state or a public fund, and the nursing home patient action in Public Health Law 2801-d contains none.

When is an employer liable for punitive damages in New York?

Under Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank (1986), only where management authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the employee's intentional wrongdoing, or deliberately retained the unfit servant.