Rubin v. Di Dimatteo

2023 NY Slip Op 05380
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 24, 2023
DocketIndex No. 154295/20 Appeal No. 896 Case No. 2023-01608
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 05380 (Rubin v. Di Dimatteo) 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
Rubin v. Di Dimatteo, 2023 NY Slip Op 05380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Rubin v Di Dimatteo (2023 NY Slip Op 05380)
Rubin v Di Dimatteo
2023 NY Slip Op 05380
Decided on October 24, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: October 24, 2023
Before: Kern, J.P., Singh, Gesmer, Scarpulla, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Index No. 154295/20 Appeal No. 896 Case No. 2023-01608

[*1]Burton Rubin, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Francesca Di Dimatteo, Defendant-Respondent.


Max D. Leifer, P.C., New York (Max Leifer of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Steven D. Isser, New York (Steven D. Isser of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 23, 2023, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the malicious prosecution claim. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant initiated or continued the criminal proceeding against him (Vizcaino v City of New York, 201 AD3d 538, 538 [1st Dept 2022]; Brown v Sears Roebuck & Co., 297 AD2d 205, 208 [1st Dept 2002]). The record demonstrates only that defendant provided information to police and signed a supporting deposition. She did not call the police; rather, plaintiff did. Defendant also did not implore prosecutors to continue the prosecution (id. at 209). Plaintiff cites no evidence that shows that defendant knowingly provided false information; in fact, he testified that he was not aware of any false statement she made to prosecutors or the court (Du Chateau v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 253 AD2d 128, 131 [1st Dept 1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 24, 2023



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

Related

Rubin v. Di Dimatteo
2023 NY Slip Op 05380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 NY Slip Op 05380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-di-dimatteo-nyappdiv-2023.