From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scholl v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1990
163 A.D.2d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 13, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, and new trial granted. Memorandum: In this action for false arrest and false imprisonment, the court erred in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict (see, CPLR 4401). There was sufficient evidence to establish that (1) defendant intended to confine plaintiff; (2) plaintiff was conscious of his confinement; (3) plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (see, Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456). Actual damages need not be shown (see, Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466). "The measure of damages for false imprisonment is such sum that would fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for injuries caused by defendant's wrongful act, including damages for mental anguish, shame and humiliation, injury to reputation, physical suffering, loss of earnings and legal expenses in defending a prior action so long as the damages are proximately caused by the illegal act" (Kehrli v. City of Utica, 105 A.D.2d 1085).


Summaries of

Scholl v. City of Utica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1990
163 A.D.2d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Scholl v. City of Utica

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SCHOLL, Appellant, v. CITY OF UTICA, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 13, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
559 N.Y.S.2d 65

Citing Cases

Allinger v. City of Utica

That was error. A complaint should not be dismissed at the close of proof unless "`by no rational process…