You are here: / / Dismissal Due to People’s Failure to Timely Indict Is Not a Termination...
,

Dismissal Due to People’s Failure to Timely Indict Is Not a Termination in Favor of the Accused Which Will Support a Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action

The Second Department determined that the dismissal of prosecution based upon the People’s failure to procure a timely indictment is not a termination favorable to the accused.  A malicious prosecution cause of action, therefore, does not lie:

In order to recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish four elements: that a criminal proceeding was commenced or initiated by the defendant; that it was terminated in favor of the accused; that it lacked probable cause; and that the proceeding was brought out of actual malice … . “[A]ny termination of a criminal prosecution, such that the criminal charges may not be brought again, qualifies as a favorable termination, so long as the circumstances surrounding the termination are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused” … . Here, although the underlying criminal charges were dismissed against the plaintiff based on the prosecution’s unreasonable delay in indicting him …, under the circumstances of this case, the disposition was “inconsistent with the innocence of the accused” … . Thus, the defendants showed that the plaintiff’s allegation that the criminal proceeding was terminated in his favor was “not a fact at all” …, and that there is no significant dispute regarding it. Sinagra v City of New York,2015 NY Slip Op 02752, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

You might also like
Issuance of a Positive Declaration that the Requested Rezoning May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment and the Requirement that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Be Drawn Up, Under the Facts, Did Not Constitute an “Injury” Sufficient to Make the Matter Ripe for Court Review—All the Relevant Factors Discussed in Depth
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.
THE FIVE-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S DEATH AND THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AN ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION; DECEDENT HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS, AFTER TRIAL FOR AN INJURY WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED; DEFENDANT REQUESTED A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED TO A CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND 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

Under the Circumstances, the Filing of a Family Offense Petition Against the... Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable...