From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Delello v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1995
221 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Summary

barring claim because favorable termination requirement satisfied only when disposition indicates innocence

Summary of this case from O'Brien v. Alexander

Opinion

November 15, 1995

Appeal from the Court of Claims, Margolis, Israel, J.

Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim in this action for malicious prosecution on the ground that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the underlying criminal action terminated in her favor.

The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement of a criminal action against plaintiff; (2) termination of the criminal action in favor of plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal action; and (4) actual malice (see, Colon v City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82; Pandolfo v U.A. Cable Sys., 171 A.D.2d 1013). The burden of proving that the criminal action terminated in plaintiff's favor is met "`only when [the] * * * final disposition is such as to indicate * * * innocence'" (Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 425-426, quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts 2d § 660, comment a).

In the present case, the order of dismissal in the criminal action "leaves the question of guilt or innocence unanswered" (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 504-505; see, Witcher v Children's Tel. Workshop, 187 A.D.2d 292, 294). Furthermore, plaintiff's amended notice of claim failed to allege in a nonconclusory fashion the basis for the dismissal of the criminal charges (see, Witcher v Children's Tel. Workshop, supra, at 294). Lastly, from our review of the record, we conclude that dismissal of the complaint was authorized on the further ground that, as a matter of law, plaintiff's arrest was based upon probable cause (see, Pandolfo v U.A. Cable Sys., supra, at 1013; see also, Broughton v State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 U.S. 929).


Summaries of

Delello v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1995
221 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

barring claim because favorable termination requirement satisfied only when disposition indicates innocence

Summary of this case from O'Brien v. Alexander
Case details for

Delello v. State

Case Details

Full title:HARVEEN DELELLO, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Claim No…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 896

Citing Cases

O'Brien v. Alexander

Decisions of each of New York's intermediate appellate courts also hint at the atrophy of the abandonment…