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.
Kevin Redmond, appellant, v. City of White Plains, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Argued-October 8, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated October 22, 2009, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants City of White Plains, Harry D. Pino, and Steven D. Demchuck which were for summary judgment dismissing his causes of action to recover for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the respondents demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing his claims alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution by submitting documentary evidence and deposition testimony which established that there was probable cause, under all of the attendant circumstances (see People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423), to arrest him and charge him with felony drug possession (see e.g. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78, 85; People v. Carter, 60 AD3d 1103, 1104-1105; People v. Dais, 222 A.D.2d 1045). In opposition to the motion, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The few, minor discrepancies in the parties' accounts of the events which he cites were insufficient for this purpose. The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit, inasmuch as the existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to the claims at issue on this appeal (see Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d at 85; Marrero v. City of New York, 33 AD3d 556, 557; Jenkins v. City of New York, 2 AD3d 291, 292). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the respondents' motion which were for summary judgment.
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-11002 (Index No. 18573 /09)
Decided: October 26, 2010
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)