Castelle v. Roter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castelle v. Roter

272 A.D.2d 499, 708 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5812

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

DecidedMay 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 499 (Castelle v. Roter) 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

Castelle v. Roter, 272 A.D.2d 499, 708 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the defendants Mark Roter and Jaye Roter appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 31, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, there was probable cause for his arrest which bars his causes of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and false arrest (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451; Grieco v Nassau County Police Dept., 266 AD2d 262; Rivera v Village of Dobbs Ferry, 234 AD2d 533). Furthermore, the plaintiff did not establish a favorable disposition of that prosecution (see, Ward v Silverberg, 85 NY2d 993). Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the defendants Mark Roter and Jaye Roter appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated March 31, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, there was probable cause for his arrest which bars his causes of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and false arrest (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451; Grieco v Nassau County Police Dept., 266 AD2d 262; Rivera v Village of Dobbs Ferry, 234 AD2d 533). Furthermore, the plaintiff did not establish a favorable disposition of that prosecution (see, Ward v Silverberg, 85 NY2d 993). Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 499, 708 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castelle-v-roter-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack