Vega v. HSBC Securities USA et al

Filing 380

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court will apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the issue of punitive damages under the NYCHRL, and the Court will not modify the jury charge or the special verdict form with respect to the issue of punitive damages. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/17/2021) (ks)

Case 1:16-cv-09424-JGK Document 380 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
───────────────────────────────────
RICHARD STRYKER,

16-cv-9424 (JGK)

Plaintiff,
- against -

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

HSBC SECURITIES (USA), ET AL.,
Defendants.
───────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
At the charge conference today, the defendants argued to
modify the jury charge and special verdict form because the
burden of proof for punitive damages under the New York City
Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”) is clear and convincing
evidence. However, after reviewing the relevant cases, the Court
concludes that the burden of proof for punitive damages under
the NYCHRL is the preponderance of the evidence standard.
The cases cited by the defendants in support of the clear
and convincing evidence standard do not involve claims under the
NYCHRL. See ECF No. 264, at 45 n.42 (citing Munoz v. Puretz, 753
N.Y.S.2d 463, 466 (App. Div. 2003); Randi A.J. v. Long Island
Surgi-Ctr., 842 N.Y.S.2d 558, 568 (App. Div. 2007)). In
Greenbaum v. Svenska Handelsbanken, N.Y., 979 F. Supp. 973
(S.D.N.Y. 1997), then-Judge Sotomayor considered the specific
question of the burden of proof to be applied to punitive damage
awards under the NYCHRL. Justice Sotomayor reviewed the

1

Case 1:16-cv-09424-JGK Document 380 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3

conflicting authority on this question and concluded that the
preponderance standard applies to punitive damage awards under
the NYCHRL. See id. at 975–82. The Court is persuaded by Justice
Sotomayor’s opinion in Greenbaum, and there appears to be no
controlling authority to the contrary. In particular, in light
of the fact that punitive damages are not a separate cause of
action under New York law, but rather are “inextricably linked
to the underlying cause of action,” “it is difficult to justify
subjecting only one form of damages to a different evidentiary
standard than all of the other elements of the claim at issue—at
least without clear direction from either a statute or
controlling judicial authority.” Greenbaum, 979 F. Supp. at 982.
In view of the clear decision by Justice Sotomayor, if the City
Council intended to heighten the burden of proof for a finding
of punitive damages under the NYCHRL, it could have said so, but
it never has. Moreover, to apply a heightened standard of proof
beyond that which is otherwise required for a violation of the
NYCHRL and an award of compensatory damages would be
inconsistent with the generally liberal interpretation of the
NYCHRL in favor of plaintiffs. See Chauca v. Abraham, 89 N.E.3d
475, 480 (N.Y. 2017).
Accordingly, the Court will apply the preponderance of the
evidence standard to the issue of punitive damages under the
NYCHRL, and the Court will not modify the jury charge or the
2

Case 1:16-cv-09424-JGK Document 380 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 3

special verdict form with respect to the issue of punitive
damages.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
November 17, 2021
____ /s/ John G. Koeltl
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

3