MacFawn v. Kresler
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2022Lepper v. Village of Babylon E.D.N.Y
- 2021Ashley v. City of New York 2d Cir.
- 2021Selvam v. United States of America E.D.N.Y
- 2020Harmon v. City of Buffalo N.Y. App. Div.
- 2019People v. Hardy (Edward) N.Y. App. Term.
- 2018Lanning v. City of Glens Falls 2nd Cir.
- 2018Mohyi v. Karen G. Brand P.C. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2017Ying Li v. City of New York E.D.N.Y.
- 2016Semmig v. Charlack N.Y. App. Div.
- 2016Laboy v. County of Ontario 2d Cir.
Cites 5 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
James MacFawn, Jr., Appellant, v Keri A. Kresler et al., Respondents.
Attorneys
- APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
- Eugene R. Spada, Albany, for appellant.
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Timothy J. Coleman, Rowan D. Wilson and Robert P. Pongetti of counsel), for respondents.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff in this malicious prosecution action bears the burden of establishing that the underlying criminal action terminated favorably to him (Ward v Silverberg, 85 NY2d 993; Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 NY2d 420; Martin v City of Albany, 42 NY2d 13, 16). A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused, for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, when the final disposition of the proceeding involves the merits and indicates the accused’s innocence (see, Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., supra; Halberstadt v New York Life Ins. Co., 194 NY 1).
In this case the information charging plaintiff with attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, theft of a credit card (Penal Law § 155.30 [4]; § 110.00), was dismissed by the court because it concluded that the facts alleged by the People were not legally sufficient to support the charge (CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]). The People were at liberty to amend the information to correct the deficiency but did not do so. Neither did they refile the charge as they could have (see, People v Nuccio, 78 NY2d 102, 104).
Manifestly, the criminal action was disposed of on procedural grounds. The court did not reach the merits and the question of plaintiff’s guilt or innocence remained unanswered after the court dismissed the information. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint in the civil action failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution and it was properly dismissed.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.