Chernow v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chernow v. Feldman

272 A.D.2d 937

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

DecidedJune 30, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 937 (Chernow v. Feldman) 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

Chernow v. Feldman, 272 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for the malicious prosecution by appellant of a criminal charge against the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: The appellant testified at the trial in the County Court, Kings County, under subpoena, and at no other proceeding in the criminal prosecution. If it be assumed that there is evidence to sustain the finding that the appellant instigated the criminal prosecution, the record is barren of proof to sustain a finding of want of probable cause. The holding by the magistrate and the indictment by the grand jury established probable cause prima facie. The statements about the appellant which appeared in the publication are libelous. There is no proof that such statements are true, thereby indicating want of probable cause for the prosecution which led to the holding by the magistrate and indictment by the grand jury.

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

Action to recover damages for the malicious prosecution by appellant of a criminal charge against the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: The appellant testified at the trial in the County Court, Kings County, under subpoena, and at no other proceeding in the criminal prosecution. If it be assumed that there is evidence to sustain the finding that the appellant instigated the criminal prosecution, the record is barren of proof to sustain a finding of want of probable cause. The holding by the magistrate and the indictment by the grand jury established probable cause prima facie. The statements about the appellant which appeared in the publication are libelous. There is no proof that such statements are true, thereby indicating want of probable cause for the prosecution which led to the holding by the magistrate and indictment by the grand jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chernow-v-feldman-nyappdiv-1947.