Brown v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

178 A.D.2d 242

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 242 (Brown v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Brown v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 178 A.D.2d 242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pecora, J.), entered May 15, 1991, which, upon renewal, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this action brought to recover damages for false arrest, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The record does not conclusively show that plaintiffs’ "confinement was not otherwise privileged”. (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929.) The averments of the police which support the conclusion that plaintiffs’ arrests were justified, are in conflict with those offered by the plaintiffs in support of the motion and, thus, raised issues of fact. One of these issues is whether an exigent circumstance existed which justified a police order to plaintiffs to either leave the scene or perform their duties. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pecora, J.), entered May 15, 1991, which, upon renewal, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this action brought to recover damages for false arrest, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The record does not conclusively show that plaintiffs’ "confinement was not otherwise privileged”. (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929.) The averments of the police which support the conclusion that plaintiffs’ arrests were justified, are in conflict with those offered by the plaintiffs in support of the motion and, thus, raised issues of fact. One of these issues is whether an exigent circumstance existed which justified a police order to plaintiffs to either leave the scene or perform their duties. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack