Burns v. City of New York

17 A.D.3d 305, 791 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 305 (Burns v. City of New York) 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
Burns v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 305, 791 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated September 23, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff cannot prevail on causes of action based upon false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution if the police officers had probable cause to believe that he or she committed the underlying crime (see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe Police Dept., 3 AD3d 561 [2004]; Ben-Zaken v City of New Rochelle, 273 AD2d 426 [2000]; Kandekore v Town of Greenburgh, 243 AD2d 610 [1997]). Probable cause requires only information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed by the plaintiff (see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417 [1985]). Here, the defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department made a prima facie showing that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff (see People v Skyles, 266 AD2d 321 [1999]; People v Brown, 128 AD2d 886 [1987]; People v Halberg, 254 AD2d 808 [1998]; People v Nichols, 156 AD2d 129 [1989]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Goldenberg v. Capital One Natl. Assn.
2020 NY Slip Op 04732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Adams v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 8619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Fabrikant v. French
722 F. Supp. 2d 249 (N.D. New York, 2010)
Dickerson Ex Rel. Davison v. Napolitano
604 F.3d 732 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Dawson v. Snow
356 F. App'x 526 (Second Circuit, 2009)
LoFaso v. City of New York
66 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Baker v. City of New York
44 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Santoro v. Town of Smithtown
40 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Whyte v. City of Yonkers
36 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Carratu
26 A.D.3d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A.D.3d 305, 791 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.