Scherr v. City of Lackawanna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scherr v. City of Lackawanna

79 A.D.3d 1785, 913 N.Y.S.2d 602

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 1785 (Scherr v. City of Lackawanna) 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

Scherr v. City of Lackawanna, 79 A.D.3d 1785, 913 N.Y.S.2d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[1786]*1786Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered June 17, 2009. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action for, inter alia, false arrest and malicious prosecution, plaintiff contends that his acceptance of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) with respect to the underlying charge of criminal possession of stolen property does not constitute a waiver of the right to contend herein that there was no probable cause to arrest him. We agree with plaintiff that, although his acceptance of an ACD bars his cause of action for malicious prosecution, it “does not interdict an action for false imprisonment” (Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 NY2d 420, 423 [1983]; cf. Molina v City of New York, 28 AD3d 372 [2006]). Contrary to the further contention of plaintiff, however, the record establishes that there was probable cause for his arrest, and thus Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion (see generally Fortunato v City of New York, 63 AD3d 880 [2009]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

[1786]*1786Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered June 17, 2009. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action for, inter alia, false arrest and malicious prosecution, plaintiff contends that his acceptance of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) with respect to the underlying charge of criminal possession of stolen property does not constitute a waiver of the right to contend herein that there was no probable cause to arrest him. We agree with plaintiff that, although his acceptance of an ACD bars his cause of action for malicious prosecution, it “does not interdict an action for false imprisonment” (Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 NY2d 420, 423 [1983]; cf. Molina v City of New York, 28 AD3d 372 [2006]). Contrary to the further contention of plaintiff, however, the record establishes that there was probable cause for his arrest, and thus Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion (see generally Fortunato v City of New York, 63 AD3d 880 [2009]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 1785, 913 N.Y.S.2d 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scherr-v-city-of-lackawanna-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack