Verboys v. Town of Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verboys v. Town of Ramapo

301 A.D.2d 647, 753 N.Y.S.2d 872

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 647 (Verboys v. Town of Ramapo) 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

Verboys v. Town of Ramapo, 301 A.D.2d 647, 753 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an [648]*648action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (O’Rourke, J.), dated December 10, 2001, which, granted the motion of the defendants Town of Ramapo and Town of Ramapo Police Department, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the respondents made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the respondents may be held liable for malicious prosecution (see Smith-Hunter v Harvey, 95 NY2d 191; Hopkinson v Lehigh Val. R.R. Co., 249 NY 296; Goddard v Daly, 295 AD2d 314; Quigley v City of Auburn, 267 AD2d 978; Viza v Town of Greece, 94 AD2d 965).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an [648]*648action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (O’Rourke, J.), dated December 10, 2001, which, granted the motion of the defendants Town of Ramapo and Town of Ramapo Police Department, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the respondents made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the respondents may be held liable for malicious prosecution (see Smith-Hunter v Harvey, 95 NY2d 191; Hopkinson v Lehigh Val. R.R. Co., 249 NY 296; Goddard v Daly, 295 AD2d 314; Quigley v City of Auburn, 267 AD2d 978; Viza v Town of Greece, 94 AD2d 965).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 647, 753 N.Y.S.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verboys-v-town-of-ramapo-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack