Lewis v. Caputo

New York Court of Appeals

Lewis v. Caputo

980 N.E.2d 527, 20 N.Y.3d 906

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 980 N.E.2d 527 (Lewis v. Caputo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Caputo, 980 N.E.2d 527, 20 N.Y.3d 906 (N.Y. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

[907]*907The Appellate Division incorrectly determined that defendant failed to provide a sufficient basis for establishing probable cause as a matter of law. While different inferences as to plaintiffs guilt or innocence of the underlying crime are possible, only one reasonable inference could be drawn from the facts regarding probable cause. Therefore, the issue was not one properly presented to the jury for determination (see Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 57 NY2d 947 [1982], affg for reasons stated at 87 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1982]; cf. Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18 [1974]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

[907]*907The Appellate Division incorrectly determined that defendant failed to provide a sufficient basis for establishing probable cause as a matter of law. While different inferences as to plaintiffs guilt or innocence of the underlying crime are possible, only one reasonable inference could be drawn from the facts regarding probable cause. Therefore, the issue was not one properly presented to the jury for determination (see Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 57 NY2d 947 [1982], affg for reasons stated at 87 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1982]; cf. Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18 [1974]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

980 N.E.2d 527, 20 N.Y.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-caputo-ny-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack