In an action to recover damages for false arrest based on a warrantless arrest, the defendant has the burden of proving legal justification as an affirmative defense ( see Broughton v. State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 458, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v. Kellogg, 423 US 929; Dioguardi v. City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 798). "Probable cause is a complete defense to an action alleging false arrest or false imprisonment" ( Carlton v. Nassau County Police Dept., 306 AD2d 365, 366; see Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85; Lui Yi v. City of New York, 227 AD2d 453).
In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, among other things, transcripts of deposition testimony establishing that identified citizens had provided information accusing the plaintiff of specific crimes, which was sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest him (seeIorio v. City of New York , 19 A.D.3d 452, 453, 798 N.Y.S.2d 437 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeNasca v. Sgro , 130 A.D.3d at 589–590, 13 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; Dioguardi v. City of New Rochelle , 179 A.D.2d 798, 799, 578 N.Y.S.2d 660 ). The defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, as the plaintiff "failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of probable cause created by the Grand Jury indictment" ( Hoyt v. City of New York , 284 A.D.2d 501, 502, 727 N.Y.S.2d 317 ).
This evidence was sufficient to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree ( Penal Law § 215.50[3] ). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeNasca v. Sgro, 130 A.D.3d at 589–590, 13 N.Y.S.3d 188 ; Dioguardi v. City of New Rochelle, 179 A.D.2d 798, 799, 578 N.Y.S.2d 660 ).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
However, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs first cause of action to recover damages for false arrest. In an action to recover damages for false arrest based on a warrantless arrest, the defendant has the burden of proving legal justification or probable cause as an affirmative defense ( see Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 458, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929; Dioguardi v City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 798). In this case, it is uncontroverted that the plaintiff was arrested without a warrant.
The question of whether the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition was a disputed factual issue for the court to resolve and the determination of the Family Court, as the trier of fact regarding credibility of witnesses, is entitled to great weight. The record supports the court's determination that the appellant committed the acts alleged in the petition, as amended ( see, e.g., Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767; see also, Matter of Greenberg v. Greenberg, 226 A.D.2d 463; see generally, People v Todaro, 26 N.Y.2d 325; Dioguardi v. City of New Rochelle, 179 A.D.2d 798; People v. Early, 85 A.D.2d 752). Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.