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.
Jo-Ann CANTALINO, respondent, v. Jacqueline DANNER, appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered August 30, 1999, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action alleging malicious prosecution.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the first cause of action is dismissed.
To defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff in an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution must establish that the underlying criminal action brought against him or her by the defendant was terminated in his or her favor (see, Ward v. Silverberg, 85 N.Y.2d 993, 629 N.Y.S.2d 168, 652 N.E.2d 914; Martin v. City of Albany, 42 N.Y.2d 13, 16, 396 N.Y.S.2d 612, 364 N.E.2d 1304). A criminal action is “terminated in the accused's favor” for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim where a judicial determination of the accused's innocence has been made on the merits of the action (see, Ward v. Silverberg, supra at 994; Hollender v. Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 461 N.Y.S.2d 765, 448 N.E.2d 432). It is well settled that a dismissal in the interests of justice pursuant to CPL 170.40 is not a “judicial determination of the accused's innocence on the merits” (Ward v. Silverberg, supra, at 994, 629 N.Y.S.2d 168, 652 N.E.2d 914; Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487; Ormandy v. Price Co., 251 A.D.2d 474, 673 N.Y.S.2d 591; DiCecilia v. Early, 234 A.D.2d 335, 651 N.Y.S.2d 94; Wolosin v. Campo, 222 A.D.2d 432, 635 N.Y.S.2d 50). Since the dismissal of the underlying criminal proceeding in this case was pursuant to CPL 170.40 in the interests of justice, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action alleging malicious prosecution (see, Ormandy v. Price Co., supra; DiCecilia v. Early, supra; Wolosin v. Campo, supra).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: February 07, 2000
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)