York v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

York v. State

172 A.D.2d 1017, 571 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1017 (York v. State) 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

York v. State, 172 A.D.2d 1017, 571 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly dismissed claimant’s cause of action for malicious prosecution. Claimant failed to establish that the criminal proceeding was terminated in his favor. The evidence supports the court’s finding that the criminal charges against claimant were dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain (see, Zebrowski v Bobinski, 278 NY 332). The evidence also supports the court’s findings that claimant was arrested based upon probable cause and that the criminal proceeding was not instituted with actual malice. There is no merit to claimant’s other contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J.—Malicious Prosecution.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly dismissed claimant’s cause of action for malicious prosecution. Claimant failed to establish that the criminal proceeding was terminated in his favor. The evidence supports the court’s finding that the criminal charges against claimant were dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain (see, Zebrowski v Bobinski, 278 NY 332). The evidence also supports the court’s findings that claimant was arrested based upon probable cause and that the criminal proceeding was not instituted with actual malice. There is no merit to claimant’s other contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J.—Malicious Prosecution.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1017, 571 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/york-v-state-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack