SANTOS v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2018)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 9, 2017, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the claims alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery was proper since defendants established that the warrantless arrest was based upon probable cause to believe that plaintiff committed the subject burglary.  Plaintiff's DNA was discovered on a crowbar left at the crime scene, and the victim stated that she neither knew plaintiff nor authorized him to enter her apartment (see e.g. People v. Ainsley, 132 A.D.3d 1007, 18 N.Y.S.3d 181 [2d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1142, 32 N.Y.S.3d 56, 51 N.E.3d 567 [2016] ).  While the Office of the Medical Examiner reported that a mixture of DNA had been recovered from the crowbar, it determined the most likely DNA profile of the major male contributor, and that profile matched defendant's DNA profile, which was included in this state's data base due to a prior conviction.

The claim for malicious prosecution was also not viable.  The grand jury's indictment created a presumption of probable cause, which could be overcome only with a showing that it was produced by fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence, or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith (see Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82–83, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 N.E.2d 1248 [1983] ).

Leave to amend the complaint to further allege that probable cause was lacking would have been futile (see Triad Intl. Corp. v. Cameron Indus., Inc., 122 A.D.3d 531, 532, 998 N.Y.S.2d 13 [1st Dept. 2014] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, and find them unavailing.