BROWN v. The New York City Police Department, et al., Defendants. (2019)

The record shows that plaintiff worked as a hair stylist in a salon that she owned and operated;  that a confidential informant had made two buys of marijuana at the hair salon from a male employee of the salon and stated where the marijuana was stored;  that upon entry pursuant to a search warrant to the salon where plaintiff and other employees were present, the officers found a number of ziploc bags of marijuana stored where the confidential informant had advised;  and that the officers then found larger amounts of marijuana in other areas of the salon, all of which was located in areas where any employee could readily access it (see People v. Marte, 295 A.D.2d 102, 747 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 769, 752 N.Y.S.2d 9, 781 N.E.2d 921 [2002] ).  Accordingly, dismissal of the false arrest claim was proper since there was probable cause for plaintiff's arrest for constructive possession of marijuana (see De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 742, 759, 27 N.Y.S.3d 468, 47 N.E.3d 747 [2016];  Veloz v. City of New York, 161 A.D.3d 668, 78 N.Y.S.3d 112 [1s Dept. 2018] ).

The existence of probable cause is also fatal to plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims (see Nadal v. City of New York, 105 A.D.3d 598, 964 N.Y.S.2d 100 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 861, 2013 WL 4459859 [2013] ), as is the fact that the adjournment in contemplation of dismissal did not constitute a termination of the case in her favor (see Hollender v. Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 425–426, 461 N.Y.S.2d 765, 448 N.E.2d 432 [1983];  Campbell v. City of New York, 159 A.D.3d 436, 69 N.Y.S.3d 472 [1st Dept. 2018].

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