COHEN v. MAZOH

The reinstated claims were adequately set forth with requisite particularity as to the painting's authenticity ( see Bernstein v. Kelso Co., 231 AD2d 314, 320). Allegations relating to the painting's provenance, on the other hand, were not adequately supported by the facts. Furthermore, the facts alleged do not establish gross, wanton or willful fraud or other morally culpable conduct to a degree sufficiently warranting punitive damages ( Borkowski v. Borkowski, 39 NY2d 982).