While summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for gross negligence may, as the IAS court held, be precluded by an issue of fact as to "whether defendants acted without the slightest care and regard to [plaintiff's and her decedent's] rights", raised by "the fact that the alleged malpractice continued over the course of six years", such issue does not preclude dismissal of the punitive damages claim under such cause of action. "Even where there is gross negligence, punitive damages are awarded only in `singularly rare cases' such as cases involving an improper state of mind or malice or cases involving wrongdoing to the public." (Karen S. "Anonymous" v. Streitferdt, 172 A.D.2d 440, 441, quotingRand Paseka Mfg. Co. v. Holmes Protection, 130 A.D.2d 429, 431, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 615). Here, there is no showing that defendants' repeated error was motivated by malice or a desire to benefit themselves at plaintiff's and her decedent's expense, or that such error "`was so outrageous as to evince a high degree of moral turpitude and showing such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations'" (Walker v. Stroh, 192 A.D.2d 775, 776, quoting Zarin v. Reid Priest, 184 A.D.2d 385, 388, citing Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401, 405). This reasoning is equally applicable to plaintiff's demands for punitive damages under the causes of action for malpractice and negligence, and, upon a search of the record (see, Chateau D'If Corp. v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 205, 209-210, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 811), those demands are dismissed as well. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.