Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph VERBOYS, respondent, et al., plaintiff, v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., defendants, Lydia Cotz, et al., appellants.
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, is 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 N.Y.2d 78, 84, 735 N.Y.S.2d 868, 761 N.E.2d 560; Cantalino v. Danner, 96 N.Y.2d 391, 394, 729 N.Y.S.2d 405, 754 N.E.2d 164). 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 N.Y.2d 191, 198, 712 N.Y.S.2d 438, 734 N.E.2d 750 [citations and 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.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 29, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)