(S.D.N.Y.1989); see also Wechsler v. Bowman, 285 N.Y. 284, 291, 34 N.E.2d 322, 326 (1941) (“Anyone who knowingly participates with a fiduciary in a breach of trust is liable for the full amount of the damage caused thereby to the cestuis que trust.”). Liability for punitive damages, however, is several only. See Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 1 F.3d 1341, 1349 (2d Cir.1993); see also Felice v. Delporte, 136 A.D.2d 913, 914, 524 N.Y.S.2d 919, 920 (4th Dep’t 1988) (“[T]rial court erred in adjudging that defendants were jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the punitive damage award. Such damages are in the nature of a penalty and contribution among tortfeasors is not permissible.”); Staudacher v. City of Buffalo, 155 A.D.2d 956, 956, 547 N.Y.S.2d 770, 771 (4th Dep’t 1989) (<HOLDING>). C. Application The Court concludes that the
recognizing that joint and several liability of  107 seems unfair but the solution is found in apportionment and contribution holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims holding that contribution will lie where no statute precludes recovery from the joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought holding that a lump sum verdict on punitive damages against all defendants was improper since there can be no joint and several liability or contribution recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several