Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On appeal the plaintiff argues primarily one point: that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff an opportunity to seek punitive damages from the defendant. The plaintiff's demand for punitive damages is premised on its allegations that the defendant engaged in a pattern of unfair claim settlement practices. The courts have repeatedly recognized that since unfair claim settlement practices may be redressed by administrative action pursuant to the Insurance Law, there is no need to recognize private causes of action for punitive damages (see, Roldan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 149 A.D.2d 20; Kent Centre Assocs. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 139 A.D.2d 630; Mavroudis v State Wide Ins. Co., 121 A.D.2d 433, 434; Kurrus v. CNA Ins. Co., 115 A.D.2d 593; Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp., 86 A.D.2d 315; Cohen v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 65 A.D.2d 71). The Supreme Court was therefore correct in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss so much of the complaint as sought punitive damages, and in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. We have examined the plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.