From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conteh v. Roebuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 2007
38 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 231.

March 15, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about July 25, 2006, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment insofar as to dismiss the causes of action for slander, libel and violation of the Human Rights Law, but denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the causes of action for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion with respect to the malicious prosecution and false imprisonment causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

Lynch Rowin LLP, New York (Marc A. Rowin of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

David Gordon, Harrison, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.


Summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims should have been granted since plaintiff failed to raise triable issues as to whether the manner and length of his detention by defendant retail merchant, on suspicion of theft of merchandise, were unreasonable ( see General Business Law § 218). Quite apart from the protections afforded defendants under General Business Law § 218, their actions in summoning the police, initiating a criminal complaint and cooperating with the District Attorney's Office did not, as a matter of law, constitute malicious prosecution ( see Present v Avon Prods., 253 AD2d 183, 189-190, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1032).

The defamation cause of action was properly dismissed since the complained-of statements by defendant Sears' employees in furtherance of their employer's interests were qualifiedly privileged and there was no evidence that the statements were maliciously motivated ( see id. at 187-188; and see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751-752).

Also properly dismissed was the cause of action alleging violation of the Human Rights Law, since plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination ( see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305).


Summaries of

Conteh v. Roebuck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 2007
38 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Conteh v. Roebuck

Case Details

Full title:LAMIN CONTEH, Respondent-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND Co. et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2027
831 N.Y.S.2d 408

Citing Cases

Azzarmi v. Key Food Stores Co-Operative Inc.

See, e.g., Bah v. Apple Inc. (Bah I), 2020 WL 614932, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020) (communications among…

Sbrigato v. JC Penny Corp.

Accordingly, the majority of the detention by defendant's employees involved simply waiting for the police,…