You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON...
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE ALLEGATION AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ON HIS BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION UPHELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department upheld a jury verdict (reducing it however) in favor of plaintiff who was detained in defendant Home Depot’s store by a Home Depot employee based upon the false allegation plaintiff had assaulted a woman. Plaintiff was detained until the police arrived and then arrested. Plaintiff was a court attorney and was seeking a judicial nomination. Plaintiff was awarded $1.8 million, which the Second Department reduced to $500,000:

The jury, after a trial on the issue of liability, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the causes of action alleging battery and false imprisonment. …

… False arrest and false imprisonment are two different names for the same common-law tort … . The elements of the tort are intent to confine the plaintiff, the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and the confinement was not otherwise privileged … . “Probable cause is a complete defense to an action alleging . . . false imprisonment” … .

The fact that the police had probable cause to detain the plaintiff based on what Marrugo [the Home Depot employee] told them does not mean that Marrugo had probable cause to detain the plaintiff. Although a civilian complainant generally cannot be found liable for false imprisonment merely for providing information to the police which turns out to be wrong … , a private person can be liable for false imprisonment for actively participating in the arrest such as “‘importuning the authorities to act'” … . The record indicates that the plaintiff would not have been arrested but for Marrugo’s detention of him, and importuning the police to arrest him. Marrugo instigated the arrest, making the police his agents in confining the plaintiff … . Marrugo did so based upon false information that the plaintiff assaulted the female customer with a shopping cart. Wieder v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04830, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: Here a Home Depot employee detained plaintiff until the police arrived based on the false allegation he had assaulted a woman. Plaintiff sued Home Depot and the verdict in plaintiff’s favor was upheld.

 

You might also like
Failure to Allege a “Special Relationship” Between Insurance Broker and Client Required Dismissal of the “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” Cause of Action
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IN A CAR WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY, WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN BE CONSIDERED WHERE, AS HERE, PLAINTIFFS MOVED TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
A SIGNED CONSENT FORM ALONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Allowed.
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).
AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACOTRS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (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

UPON CONVICTION OF ROBBERY SECOND, ROBBERY THIRD, AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE,... DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT...