Paul J. G. v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paul J. G. v. County of Nassau

288 A.D.2d 179, 732 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10492

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 179 (Paul J. G. v. County of Nassau) 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

Paul J. G. v. County of Nassau, 288 A.D.2d 179, 732 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated December 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $150,550.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly declined to limit the testimony on the issue of damages to the events which transpired after the arraignment of the plaintiff Paul J. G. (hereinafter the plaintiff), and permitted testimony about the events following his arrest. The Supreme! Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s arrest and confinement, followed by the arraignment, initiated the underlying criminal proceeding for the purposes of this action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution (see, Carl v Ayers, 53 NY 14; MacDonald v National Art Co., 69 Misc 325; cf, Stile v City of New York, 172 AD2d 743). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated December 1, 2000, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $150,550.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly declined to limit the testimony on the issue of damages to the events which transpired after the arraignment of the plaintiff Paul J. G. (hereinafter the plaintiff), and permitted testimony about the events following his arrest. The Supreme! Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s arrest and confinement, followed by the arraignment, initiated the underlying criminal proceeding for the purposes of this action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution (see, Carl v Ayers, 53 NY 14; MacDonald v National Art Co., 69 Misc 325; cf, Stile v City of New York, 172 AD2d 743). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 179, 732 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-j-g-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack