You are here: / / Mall Security Guards Did Not Actively Participate in Arrest of Plaintiff...
, ,

Mall Security Guards Did Not Actively Participate in Arrest of Plaintiff But Rather Acted at the Behest of the Police—False Arrest, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the Mall Should Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined the causes of action against a mall for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution should have been dismissed.  The court determined the mall personnel (security guards) did not actively cause the plaintiff to be arrested, but rather were instructed to act by the police:

…[T]he causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment are synonymous …, and our analysis treats them as such. We agree with the Mall defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion concerning those causes of action. In order to establish liability therefor on the part of the Mall defendants, plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, that the Mall defendants ” took an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ “… . Here, however, the Mall defendants met their initial burden on their motion of establishing as a matter of law that their security guard did not take the requisite “active role” in arresting plaintiff. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the record establishes that the security guard handcuffed plaintiff only at the direction of a Town of Greece police officer (hereafter, police officer), who informed plaintiff that she was under arrest … .

…[T]he court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking dismissal of the cause of action for malicious prosecution. In order to hold the Mall defendants liable for that tort, plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, “the commencement . . . of a criminal proceeding by the [Mall] defendant[s] against” her … . To establish that element, plaintiff would have to prove that the Mall defendants “affirmatively induced the [police] officer to act,” for example, by “taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the [police] officer [was] not acting of his own volition” … . We conclude in this case, however, that the Mall defendants met their initial burden on their motion of establishing that they did not commence a criminal proceeding against plaintiff inasmuch as the security guard did not affirmatively induce the police officer to act to the point where the police officer was not acting of his own volition. Indeed, the record establishes that the police officer observed the altercation, and acted of his own volition in directing the security guard to handcuff plaintiff and in informing plaintiff that she was under arrest. Washington v Town of Greece, 2015 NY Slip Op 02661, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

You might also like
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
COUNTY COURT COULD NOT LEGALLY FULFILL THE SENTENCING PROMISE THAT INDUCED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, PLEA VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE WHICH COMPORTS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPECTATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Inform Defendant of People’s Appeal of Trial Court’s Dismissal of His Indictment Required Grant of a Writ of Coram Nobis
ADVERSE POSSESSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS LAKE FRONT PROPERTY DISPUTE, THE USE OF THE LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE (FOURTH DEPT).
PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE COURT REDUCED THE FELONY TO A MISDEMEANOR REQURED VACATION OF THE PLEA AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT.
INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND LAWSUIT BY RESIDENTS WHICH ALLEGED THE INSURED CONTAMINATED THE AREA WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, THE ALLEGATION OF A MALODOROUS CONDITION WAS DEEMED NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
BANK WHICH PURPORTEDLY ACCELERATED THE DEBT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO DO SO, PLAINTIFF BANK ENTITLED ONLY TO THE UNPAID INSTALLMENTS WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court Abused Its Discretion by Failing to Consider the Least Restrictive... Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the Second...