Opinion
January 19, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.).
Ordered that the appeal by Greenpoint Bank is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court ( see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Cullen and Dykman and insofar as cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action after the defendants' prior foreclosure action against him was dismissed as baseless ( see, Chu v. Green Point Say. Bank, 216 A.D.2d 348). The defendant Cullen and Dykman contends that the Supreme Court erred by refusing to dismiss the cause of action alleging malicious prosecution because the plaintiff failed to show either interference with his property or malice ( see, Ellman v. McCarty, 70 A.D.2d 150). However, inasmuch as the defendants caused the provisional remedy of a lis pendens to be filed upon the plaintiff's property in connection with their foreclosure action, the plaintiff has clearly demonstrated interference with his property ( see, Chappelle v. Gross, 26 A.D.2d 340). In addition, since the defendants continued to maintain the foreclosure action despite the lack of probable cause therefor and despite the fact that Cullen and Dykman had informed the New York State Banking Department that the action would be discontinued, the element of malice may be inferred ( see, Berman v. Silver, Forrester Schisano, 156 A.D.2d 624, 625; see also, Nineteen N.Y. Props. Ltd. Partnership v. Uk Jee Kim, 251 A.D.2d 104).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Santucci, J.P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.