Opinion
570422/07.
Decided May 12, 2008.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter Moulton, J.), entered June 30, 2006, which granted defendants' respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Davis, Schoenfeld, JJ.
Order (Peter Moulton, J.), entered June 30, 2006, modified to reinstate plaintiff's false arrest cause of action against defendant Singh; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.
Defendant Singh's contention that he cannot be held liable for false arrest as a civilian complainant is without merit, since there are triable issues of fact as to whether he intentionally provided false evidence to the police resulting in the plaintiff's arrest ( see Brown v Nassau County, 306 AD2d 303). Notable in this regard is plaintiff's submission of and Singh's failure to meaningfully address an affidavit of a nonparty (Aliahmad) recounting the particulars of a meeting between the affiant and Singh, in which Singh is said to have acknowledged the falsehood of the underlying accusations that he leveled against plaintiff and indicated that he (Singh) "was put up by others" to make such false complaints.
Plaintiff's false arrest claim against defendant Baldeo stands on a different footing. That claim was properly dismissed, given the absence of record evidence that Baldeo participated in plaintiff's arrest or gave advice to or had any direct contact with law enforcement authorities ( see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe Police Dept., 3 AD3d 561). Plaintiff's argument that defendant Baldeo may have acted more culpably than the record suggests is based on speculation and is insufficient to raise a triable issue.
We sustain the dismissal of plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim against both defendants, in view of plaintiff's failure to raise an issue of fact as to the termination of the underlying criminal prosecution in his favor. In this connection, the record discloses only that the District Attorney voluntarily discontinued the prosecution without any determination on the merits or record indication of the reason for the discontinuance ( see Brown v Sears Roebuck Co., 297 AD2d 205, 211-212).
This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.