Verboys v. Town of Ramapo

12 A.D.3d 665, 785 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14485
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 665 (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, 12 A.D.3d 665, 785 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendants Lydia Cotz and George Cotz appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), entered July 22, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, [666]*666is in favor of the plaintiff Joseph Verboys and against them in the principal sum of $10,000 each.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish that the underlying criminal action was terminated in his or her favor (see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 84 [2001]; Cantalino v Danner, 96 NY2d 391, 394 [2001]). A dismissal of the criminal charges without prejudice qualifies as a final, favorable termination if the dismissal represents “the formal abandonment of the proceedings by the public prosecutor” (Smith-Hunter v Harvey, 95 NY2d 191, 198 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, although the initial criminal proceeding against the plaintiff Joseph Verboys was dismissed without prejudice, the record demonstrates that the prosecution undertook a full investigation and elected not to proceed with the charges because it determined that the allegations against the plaintiff were not supported by the evidence. Thus, there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to conclude that the criminal proceedings terminated in favor of the plaintiff (see Cantalino v Danner, supra; Smith-Hunter v Harvey, supra).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Vett v. City Of New York
S.D. New York, 2023
Breton v. City of New York
S.D. New York, 2019
Jeremiah Goodwin v. City of Shepherdstown
825 S.E.2d 363 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2019)
Butler v. Hesch
286 F. Supp. 3d 337 (N.D. New York, 2018)
Ying Li v. City of New York
246 F. Supp. 3d 578 (E.D. New York, 2017)
Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.
50 F. Supp. 3d 267 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Stampf v. Trigg
Second Circuit, 2014
Stampf v. Long Island Railroad
761 F.3d 192 (Second Circuit, 2014)
Rohrs v. Rohrs
17 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 665, 785 N.Y.S.2d 496, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verboys-v-town-of-ramapo-nyappdiv-2004.