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.
Pacific Carlton Development Corp., et al., appellants, v. 752 Pacific St. Corp., et al., respondents.
Submitted—April 12, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated January 3, 2011, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging abuse of process.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process. We disagree. The three essential elements of the tort of abuse of process are “(1) regularly issued process, either civil or criminal, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective” (Curiano v. Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113, 116). Under the facts alleged herein, the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process (see Curiano v. Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113; Greco v. Christoffersen, 70 AD3d 769, 770). Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss that cause of action was properly granted.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention refers to matter dehors the record and, thus, is not properly before this Court.
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
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: 2011–11264 (Index No. 5287 /10)
Decided: June 05, 2013
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)