Howard v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. City of New York

294 A.D.2d 184, 741 N.Y.S.2d 687, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4942

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

DecidedMay 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 184 (Howard v. City of New York) 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

Howard v. City of New York, 294 A.D.2d 184, 741 N.Y.S.2d 687, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 12, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs malicious prosecution cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Department of Correction of the City of New York brought charges and specifications against plaintiff, a corrections officer, premised upon her alleged appearance in a pornographic video. It was later discovered that plaintiff did [185]*185not appear in the video and the charges were ultimately not pursued. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action alleging, inter alia, a cause of action for malicious prosecution against defendants based on their purportedly deficient investigation into the grounds for initiating the disciplinary proceeding against her.

The IAS court properly dismissed the malicious prosecution claim because plaintiff failed to allege special injury. She did not allege “concrete harm * * * considerably more cumbersome than the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending” the disciplinary proceeding (Engel v CBS, Inc., 93 NY2d 195, 205), or that she suffered “a highly substantial and identifiable interference with person, property or business” (id.; cf., Groat v Town Bd. of Town of Glenville, 73 AD2d 426, 429-430, appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 928). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 12, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs malicious prosecution cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Department of Correction of the City of New York brought charges and specifications against plaintiff, a corrections officer, premised upon her alleged appearance in a pornographic video. It was later discovered that plaintiff did [185]*185not appear in the video and the charges were ultimately not pursued. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action alleging, inter alia, a cause of action for malicious prosecution against defendants based on their purportedly deficient investigation into the grounds for initiating the disciplinary proceeding against her.

The IAS court properly dismissed the malicious prosecution claim because plaintiff failed to allege special injury. She did not allege “concrete harm * * * considerably more cumbersome than the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending” the disciplinary proceeding (Engel v CBS, Inc., 93 NY2d 195, 205), or that she suffered “a highly substantial and identifiable interference with person, property or business” (id.; cf., Groat v Town Bd. of Town of Glenville, 73 AD2d 426, 429-430, appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 928). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 184, 741 N.Y.S.2d 687, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack