Coleman v. Corporate Loss Prevention Associates, Inc.

282 A.D.2d 703, 724 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4203
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 703 (Coleman v. Corporate Loss Prevention Associates, Inc.) 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
Coleman v. Corporate Loss Prevention Associates, Inc., 282 A.D.2d 703, 724 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for negligent investigation and negligent supervision, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 19, 1999, as denied that branch of his motion which was for reimbursement for the cost incurred to effect service of process on the defendant, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The plaintiff was arrested for trademark counterfeiting in connection with Kim’s Specialty Store after an investigation by the defendant, a private investigation firm, led to the discovery of merchandise from the store with counterfeit labels. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the plaintiff’s girlfriend, an owner of the store, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of trademark counterfeiting, and the charges against the plaintiff were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant for negligent investigation and supervision, claiming that he was not an owner, employee, or agent of the store.

The plaintiff’s claims sound in negligent prosecution and were properly dismissed. There is no cause of action in the State of New York sounding in negligent prosecution or investigation (see, Antonious v Muhammad, 250 AD2d 559; Pandolfo v U.A. Cable Sys., 171 AD2d 1013, 1014).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Noakes v. Syracuse Univ.
369 F. Supp. 3d 397 (N.D. New York, 2019)
John Doe v. Syracuse Univ.
341 F. Supp. 3d 125 (N.D. New York, 2018)
Robinson v. United States
332 F. Supp. 3d 516 (E.D. New York, 2018)
Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges
271 F. Supp. 3d 386 (W.D. New York, 2017)
Hines v. City of New York
142 A.D.3d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Watson v. United States
133 F. Supp. 3d 502 (E.D. New York, 2015)
Xiaolu "Peter" Yu v. Vassar College
97 F. Supp. 3d 448 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Greer v. National Grid
89 A.D.3d 1059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Stahl v. Gross (In Re Gross)
288 B.R. 655 (E.D. New York, 2003)
Russ v. State Employees Federal Credit Union
298 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Romero v. State
294 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 703, 724 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-corporate-loss-prevention-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2001.