Pandolfo v. Brodell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pandolfo v. Brodell

3 A.D.2d 853, 161 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5864

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

DecidedApril 15, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 853 (Pandolfo v. Brodell) 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

Pandolfo v. Brodell, 3 A.D.2d 853, 161 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The allegation in the complaint that appellant had made a sworn accusation against respondent before a Judge of the District Court of Nassau County, who thereupon issued a warrant for her arrest, did not constitute an admission that there existed probable cause on appellant’s part for belief that respondent was guilty of the charge made against her, so as to require the allegation of further facts sufficient to overcome [854]*854the effect o£ such an admission. (C£. Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley B. B. Go., 249 N. Y. 296, 300; Graham v. Buffalo Gen. Laundries Gorp., 261 N. Y. 165, 168; Ohernow V. Feldman, 251 App. Div. 329.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The allegation in the complaint that appellant had made a sworn accusation against respondent before a Judge of the District Court of Nassau County, who thereupon issued a warrant for her arrest, did not constitute an admission that there existed probable cause on appellant’s part for belief that respondent was guilty of the charge made against her, so as to require the allegation of further facts sufficient to overcome [854]*854the effect o£ such an admission. (C£. Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley B. B. Go., 249 N. Y. 296, 300; Graham v. Buffalo Gen. Laundries Gorp., 261 N. Y. 165, 168; Ohernow V. Feldman, 251 App. Div. 329.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 853, 161 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pandolfo-v-brodell-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack