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
TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH RESULTED IN THE FORMATION OF ICE, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Forum Selection Clause Requiring All Enforcement Actions to be Brought in Surrogate’s Court Enforced 
IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; NO FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBMITTED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
“Substantial Evidence” Standard of Court Review Explained
AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION CONSTITUTED THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A VERIFIED PETITION IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...