Taylor v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. City of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 8924

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2019

Docket10539 305926/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 8924 (Taylor v. City of New York) 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

Taylor v. City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 8924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Taylor v City of New York (2019 NY Slip Op 08924)

Taylor v City of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 08924

Decided on December 12, 2019

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 on December 12, 2019
Richter, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Moulton, JJ.

10539 305926/13

[*1] Derrick Taylor, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants, The Tactical Team Sgt., etc. et al., Defendants.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for appellants.

Sim & DePaola LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about January 31, 2019, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's state and federal claims of malicious prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record shows that defendants' observations provided probable cause for plaintiff's arrest, giving them a complete defense to the claims of malicious prosecution notwithstanding the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges (see De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 26 NY3d 742, 759-761 [2016]; Arzeno v Mack, 39 AD3d 341 [1st Dept 2007]; Batista v City of New York, 15 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2005]). Plaintiff also failed to establish actual malice with respect to the prosecution (see Jenkins v City of New York, 2 AD3d 291 [1st Dept 2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 12, 2019

DEPUTY CLERK

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

Taylor v City of New York (2019 NY Slip Op 08924)

Taylor v City of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 08924

Decided on December 12, 2019

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 on December 12, 2019
Richter, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Moulton, JJ.

10539 305926/13

[*1] Derrick Taylor, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants, The Tactical Team Sgt., etc. et al., Defendants.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo Di Silvio of counsel), for appellants.

Sim & DePaola LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about January 31, 2019, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's state and federal claims of malicious prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record shows that defendants' observations provided probable cause for plaintiff's arrest, giving them a complete defense to the claims of malicious prosecution notwithstanding the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges (see De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 26 NY3d 742, 759-761 [2016]; Arzeno v Mack, 39 AD3d 341 [1st Dept 2007]; Batista v City of New York, 15 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2005]). Plaintiff also failed to establish actual malice with respect to the prosecution (see Jenkins v City of New York, 2 AD3d 291 [1st Dept 2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 12, 2019

DEPUTY CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2019 NY Slip Op 8924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack