Tersigni v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tersigni v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority

293 A.D.2d 366, 741 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 366 (Tersigni v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority) 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

Tersigni v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 293 A.D.2d 366, 741 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered August 1, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleging false arrest and imprisonment was properly dismissed since defendants met their burden to demonstrate that plaintiffs arrest as well as his ensuing prearraignment incarceration were supported by probable cause (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, cert denied [367]*367sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929; Shapiro v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 358, lv denied 83 NY2d 760). In this connection, the record sufficiently establishes that plaintiff, while operating his vehicle, was observed by the arresting officers at a toll booth area waiting to pay his toll; that he appeared to the officers to be unsteady and confused, and smelled of alcohol; and that his face appeared flushed and his eyes, watery and bloodshot. In addition, while plaintiff was still in the toll plaza, two other cars pulled into the plaza, and the drivers of those vehicles informed the officers that their cars had been struck by plaintiff’s automobile and that plaintiff, subsequent to the vehicular contact, had failed to stop. Under these circumstances, the officers were amply justified in arresting defendant.

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered August 1, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleging false arrest and imprisonment was properly dismissed since defendants met their burden to demonstrate that plaintiffs arrest as well as his ensuing prearraignment incarceration were supported by probable cause (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, cert denied [367]*367sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929; Shapiro v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 358, lv denied 83 NY2d 760). In this connection, the record sufficiently establishes that plaintiff, while operating his vehicle, was observed by the arresting officers at a toll booth area waiting to pay his toll; that he appeared to the officers to be unsteady and confused, and smelled of alcohol; and that his face appeared flushed and his eyes, watery and bloodshot. In addition, while plaintiff was still in the toll plaza, two other cars pulled into the plaza, and the drivers of those vehicles informed the officers that their cars had been struck by plaintiff’s automobile and that plaintiff, subsequent to the vehicular contact, had failed to stop. Under these circumstances, the officers were amply justified in arresting defendant.

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 366, 741 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tersigni-v-triborough-bridge-and-tunnel-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack