Summary
holding that a $50,000 malicious prosecution compensatory damages award deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the award to $25,000
Summary of this case from Stampf v. Long Island R.R. Co.Opinion
2004-00974.
April 25, 2005.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated December 8, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $50,000.
Kevin Costello, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.
Gallagher, Walker, Bianco Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert J. Walker of counsel), for respondent.
Before: H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, and a new trial on the issue of damages only is granted, unless within 20 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, she shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to damages from the sum of $50,000 to the sum of $25,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment; in the event the plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so decreased and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish that the underlying criminal action was terminated in his or her favor ( see Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78; Cantalino v. Danner, 96 NY2d 391; Smith-Hunter v. Harvey, 95 NY2d 191). A dismissal, without prejudice, of the underlying criminal charges against a plaintiff, will serve as a "favorable termination" where it represents the "formal abandonment of the proceedings" ( Smith-Hunter v. Harvey, supra at 198, quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts § 659 [c] and Comment e; see Verboys v. Town of Ramapo, 12 AD3d 665; cf. Tzambazis v. City of New York, 291 AD2d 397; Kirshenbaum v. Kirshenbaum, 203 AD2d 534; Campo v. Wolosin, 211 AD2d 660; Mondello v. Mondello, 161 AD2d 690).
The dismissal of the pending charges against the plaintiff in this case pursuant to CPL 160.50 constituted a favorable termination as a matter of law. Accordingly, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to submit this issue to the jury ( see Loeb v. Teitelbaum, 77 AD2d 92, 98).
However, we agree with the defendant's contention that the award of $50,000 for compensatory damages deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated ( see CPLR 5501 [c]; Lynch v. County of Nassau, 278 AD2d 205).