Hays v. Penn Traffic Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hays v. Penn Traffic Co.

270 A.D.2d 941, 705 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3452

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 941 (Hays v. Penn Traffic 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

Hays v. Penn Traffic Co., 270 A.D.2d 941, 705 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment on the false arrest cause of action. However, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that it alleges a cause of action for prima facie tort, i.e., the infliction of intentional harm, based on plaintiff’s failure to plead special damages (see, Lincoln First Bank v Siegel, 60 AD2d 270, 279-280), and we modify the order accordingly. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment on the false arrest cause of action. However, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that it alleges a cause of action for prima facie tort, i.e., the infliction of intentional harm, based on plaintiff’s failure to plead special damages (see, Lincoln First Bank v Siegel, 60 AD2d 270, 279-280), and we modify the order accordingly. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 941, 705 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-penn-traffic-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack