From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cantalino v. Danner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted December 15, 1999

February 10, 2000

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.

Lifshutz, Polland Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Elliot Polland of counsel), for appellant.

Genovesi, Landicino Genovesi, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anthony Genovesi of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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 ; Martin v. City of Albany, 42 N.Y.2d 13, 16 ). 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; Hollender v. Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420 ). 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; Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494 ; Ormandy v. Price Co., 251 A.D.2d 474 ; DiCecilia v. Early, 234 A.D.2d 335 ; Wolosin v. Campo, 222 A.D.2d 432 ). 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).


Summaries of

Cantalino v. Danner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Cantalino v. Danner

Case Details

Full title:JO-ANN CANTALINO, respondent, v. JACQUELINE DANNER, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 10, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 626

Citing Cases

Mason v. Town of New Paltz Police Dept.

It is well settled that a dismissal in the interests of justice pursuant to N.Y.Crim.Proc. Law § 170.40 is…