Cobban v. B. Altman & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cobban v. B. Altman & Co.

207 A.D.2d 426, 615 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8339

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

DecidedAugust 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 426 (Cobban v. B. Altman & Co.) 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

Cobban v. B. Altman & Co., 207 A.D.2d 426, 615 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated December 9, 1992, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution cause of action.

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

To make out a cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it is essential that the plaintiff demonstrate that the criminal proceeding was not predicated upon probable cause (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929). Although the plaintiff Yolanda Cobban was acquitted of the underlying larceny charge, the criminal court expressly found, in denying the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the criminal court complaint, that the defendant security guard had probable cause to detain her for shoplifting. Under the circumstances of this case, the malicious prosecution cause of action was properly dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated December 9, 1992, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution cause of action.

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

To make out a cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, it is essential that the plaintiff demonstrate that the criminal proceeding was not predicated upon probable cause (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929). Although the plaintiff Yolanda Cobban was acquitted of the underlying larceny charge, the criminal court expressly found, in denying the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the criminal court complaint, that the defendant security guard had probable cause to detain her for shoplifting. Under the circumstances of this case, the malicious prosecution cause of action was properly dismissed. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 426, 615 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobban-v-b-altman-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack