Bayat v. Azaz

12 A.D.3d 547, 784 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14232
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 22, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 547 (Bayat v. Azaz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bayat v. Azaz, 12 A.D.3d 547, 784 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), entered January 8, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to its determination in an order dated November 24, 2003, granting the defendants’ prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that the defendant either commenced or continued a criminal proceeding against him or her, and that the proceeding terminated in his or her favor (see Cantalino v Danner, 96 NY2d 391 [2001]; Smith-Hunter v Harvey, 95 NY2d 191 [2000]; Avgush v Town of Yorktown, 303 AD2d 340 [2003]). The complaint’s factual allegations were insufficient to establish that the defendants commenced or continued a criminal action against the plaintiff (see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe Police Dept., 3 AD3d 561 [2004]; Goddard v Daly, 295 AD2d 314 [2002]), or that the criminal proceeding terminated in the plaintiffs favor (see Cantalino v Danner, supra at 394-395; Smith-Hunter v Harvey, supra at 195). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) and, upon reargument, properly adhered to its original determination.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Briggs v. State of New York Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
2018 NY Slip Op 5385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 547, 784 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayat-v-azaz-nyappdiv-2004.