I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 002) numbered 48-60, 62-69 were read on this motion. The following papers were considered in connection with Motion Sequence No. 002, pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]:

1. Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Add Punitive Damages, dated December 29, 2025, together with the Affirmation of Jessica Thual, Esq., the Affirmation of Romeo Familia, the Affirmation of Carissa Romano, and the exhibits annexed thereto; and

2. Affirmation in Opposition of Jenna L. Hazlett, Esq., dated February 4, 2026, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, as reflected in the submissions before the Court, the [*2]Court now renders the following Decision and Order:

This personal injury action arises from a trip-and-fall incident that occurred on April 20, 2024, at the premises located at 300 Cortelyou Avenue, Staten Island, New York, a twenty-four—unit residential apartment building owned and operated by defendant 300 Cortelyou Realty Corp., and controlled by defendants Fazil Cosaj and Sadik Cosaj. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54 at page 9, line 23 through page10, line 2; page 73, line 11-12).

The motion papers establish that defendants have owned and operated the subject property for more than two decades and derived substantial and continuous rental income therefrom, estimated at in excess of $250,000 annually. (see id at page 73, line 23 through page 74, line 6). Ownership of the corporate defendant is evenly divided between the two principals, with Fazil Cosaj serving as president. (see id at 73, lines 7-16).

Discovery materials annexed to plaintiff's motion demonstrate that defendants maintained no formal system of inspection, maintenance, hazard reporting, or safety compliance. Neither principal possessed training in property management, building maintenance, or safety inspection. They did not consult with property management professionals, safety experts, or inspectors. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54 pages 8-9; 56 pages 8-9). No written maintenance plans, inspection schedules, policies, checklists, or procedures were in place. No logs or records of hazards, complaints, or repairs were maintained. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53 at pages 26; 34).

All operational responsibilities were delegated to unpaid family members. Becir Cosaj, defendants' brother, functioned as the primary handyman for more than twenty-two years without compensation. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53 pages 19-20, 77, 80, 89, 95; 54 at pages 62-63). Sahadet Cosaj handled administrative and legal matters without pay. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 58 at pages 14, 55-56). Their children performed sporadic cleaning and maintenance. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 58 at pages 24-25). The materials before the Court reveal an absence of supervision, training, defined job responsibilities, or performance oversight. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53 at pages 26, 34).

The principals themselves were largely absentee owners. Both testified that they could not recall when they last visited the premises in any meaningful capacity. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54 at pages 20-21; 56 at page 21). Fazil Cosaj acknowledged that when he did attend, he frequently remained in his vehicle and did not conduct physical inspections of the property. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54 at pages 21-23).

The submissions further demonstrate that defendants exercised minimal financial oversight over maintenance and repairs. (see id pages 26-28). There was no established maintenance budget. Invoices were approved without consistent review by the principals. (see id at page 28). Fazil Cosaj testified that he did not know how much was spent on maintenance in 2024 or 2025. (see id at pages 27-29).

On February 20, 2024, Carissa Romano, plaintiff's fiancée, slipped and fell on the rear exterior walkway of the premises near a metal grate covering a sewer access. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 57 at pages 28-29). She observed a depression in the grate where snow and ice had accumulated. (see id at page 38). The area was poorly lit. (see id).

Following this incident, counsel for Ms. Romano transmitted written notices dated March [*3]4, 2024, and March 25, 2024, to defendants, advising them of the accident and the hazardous condition. (see id at pages 34-39). Sahadet Cosaj acknowledged receiving the notices and forwarding them to the insurance carrier without investigation, inspection, documentation, or remedial action. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 58 at page 47).

Photographs taken on March 1, 2024 depict broken pavers adjacent to a depressed metal grate in the same location. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 49 at ¶35). These images show a visibly deteriorated and uneven walking surface. (see id). Defendants' principals were later informed that "two falls" had occurred involving the same family in the same location. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 54 at pages 76-77). Fazil Cosaj testified that he did not inquire into the cause of either fall and did not inspect the area. (see id at pages 44, 85). He assumed that no repairs were necessary because he regarded the walkway as "only an emergency exit," despite sworn testimony that tenants regularly used the walkway for ordinary ingress and egress. (see id at pages 45-46).

No repairs, warnings, inspections, or remediation were implemented after Ms. Romano's fall. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 56 at pages 39-41). On April 20, 2024, at approximately 9:45 p.m., plaintiff fell in the same location. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 55 at pages 31, 35). He testified that the area was "pitch black" due to non-functioning lighting. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 50 at ¶12-15). Plaintiff tripped on the edge of the depressed metal grate and struck the adjacent broken paver, sustaining fractures to his ankle and femur, a torn meniscus, and requiring multiple surgeries. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 55 at pages 53, 56-59, 93-103). He alleges permanent pain, mobility limitations, and inability to work. (see id at pages 112-115).

After plaintiff's accident, the broken paver was repaired the same day by Becir Cosaj using materials already on hand, at no cost. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53 at page 48-49, 54, 69). Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages, contending that discovery has revealed a sustained pattern of conscious disregard for tenant safety motivated by financial self-interest.

Defendants oppose the motion, asserting that plaintiff's allegations amount to no more than ordinary negligence and are insufficient as a matter of law to support punitive damages.

CPLR § 3025 [b] provides that leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given" in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from delay, or where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.

The Second Department has consistently held that, at the amendment stage, a plaintiff is not required to establish the ultimate merits of the proposed claim. The court's inquiry is limited to whether the proposed amendment is clearly without merit as a matter of law (see Rubin v Poly Prep Country Day School, 227 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2024]; Favia v Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 119 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2014]).

Where a motion is made prior to the filing of the note of issue and is based upon facts developed during discovery, leave to amend should be granted absent prejudice or surprise (see Favia, 119 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2014]; Rubin v Poly Prep Country Day School, 227 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2024]). Punitive damages may be awarded where conduct "evidences a high degree of moral culpability, or where the conduct is so flagrant as to transcend mere carelessness, or where the conduct constitutes willful or wanton negligence or recklessness" (see Pellegrini v Richmond [*4]County Ambulance Serv., Inc., 48 AD3d 436 [2d Dept 2008]).

Punitive damages may be imposed against a corporate defendant where the conduct was authorized, participated in, consented to, or ratified by management, or where the corporation exhibited reckless indifference to known safety risks (see Pellegrini v. Richmond County Ambulance Serv., Inc., 48 AD3d 436 [2d Dept 2008]; Edwards v 1234 Pac. Mgt., LLC, 139 AD3d 658 [2d Dept 2016]).

In Edwards v 1234 Pac. Mgt., LLC (139 AD3d 658 [2d Dept 2016]), the Appellate Division affirmed leave to amend to assert punitive damages where the plaintiff alleged prolonged inaction and a broader course of conduct demonstrating "utter disregard" for tenant safety.

At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff's motion was made prior to the filing of the note of issue and is grounded entirely upon facts elicited during depositions, affidavits, and documentary submissions. Defendants have been aware of the underlying factual allegations throughout discovery. Accordingly, no prejudice or surprise has been demonstrated.

The sole question before the Court is whether the proposed punitive damages claim is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. Plaintiff's submissions, viewed in their totality and afforded the liberal construction required at this procedural juncture, set forth far more than an isolated act of inattention or a singular failure to repair.

The materials before the Court describe a longstanding, systemic approach to property management characterized by: The absence of any inspection or safety protocol; The absence of trained or qualified personnel; Delegation of all maintenance and administrative functions to unpaid, unsupervised relatives; Minimal personal involvement by corporate principals; A lack of financial planning for maintenance; Disregard of written legal notices concerning dangerous conditions; Failure to investigate or document prior accidents; Failure to inspect or repair after learning of multiple falls in the same location; A conscious decision not to act based on an unfounded assumption minimizing the importance of the walkway; Immediate post-accident repair demonstrating ease of remediation.

The submissions further establish that defendants' principals financially benefitted from minimizing maintenance expenditures and acknowledged that reduced spending increased their personal profit. After receiving written notice of a fall involving the same condition, and after learning of multiple injuries in the same location, defendants made no inquiry, conducted no inspection, and implemented no corrective measures. Instead, they continued to rely on an informal, unsupervised family arrangement and exercised no meaningful oversight.

Such allegations, if proven, may support a finding that defendants consciously elected to ignore known hazards, accepted the foreseeable risk of injury, and placed profit above safety. This is precisely the type of management-level indifference and ratification contemplated by Pellegrini and Edwards.

In Edwards v 1234 Pac. Mgt., LLC (139 AD3d 658 [2d Dept 2016]), the Appellate Division emphasized that punitive damages may be warranted where unsafe conditions are part of a broader course of prolonged inaction reflecting deliberate indifference. The allegations before this Court are analogous. Plaintiff alleges years of neglect, documented complaints, prior injuries, and continued inaction.

Defendants' reliance on cases such as Jones v LeFrance Leasing Ltd. Partnership (127 AD3d 819 [2d Dept 2015]) and Zabas v Kard (194 AD2d 784 [2d Dept 1993]) is unavailing at this stage. Those cases involved circumstances where allegations amounted only to ordinary [*5]negligence. Here, plaintiff alleges a systemic abdication of responsibility and knowing disregard of repeated warnings.

Defendants further argue that the proposed amended complaint alleges only negligence. However, the sufficiency of a punitive damages claim is assessed in light of the evidentiary submissions supporting the amendment, not merely the pleading's use of particular terminology (Rubin v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch., 227 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2024]; Favia v Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 119 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2014]). Moreover, plaintiff is not required to establish entitlement to punitive damages on this motion. Credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, and resolution of disputed factual issues are reserved for trial (Rubin v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch., 227 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2024]; Favia v Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 119 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2014]). At this juncture, the Court is satisfied that plaintiff has demonstrated that the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit.

In view of the liberal amendment policy embodied in CPLR § 3025 [b], the absence of demonstrated prejudice or surprise, and the detailed factual allegations supporting a theory of reckless and morally culpable conduct, plaintiff's motion must be granted.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3025 [b] to assert a claim for punitive damages against defendants 300 Cortelyou Realty Corp. and Fazil Cosaj is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the proposed Amended Complaint annexed as Exhibit "9" to the motion papers shall be deemed served and filed upon service of this Order with Notice of Entry; and it is further

ORDERED that defendants shall serve and file an answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint within the time prescribed by law after service of this Order with Notice of Entry.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.