You are here: / False Imprisonment
, , ,

Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined a mistake made by the Division of Parole, which resulted in claimant’s prosecution and imprisonment for a violation of parole at a time when his parole had been terminated, was privileged.  Therefore, the claimant’s action for false imprisonment was properly dismissed:

To establish a claim of false imprisonment, claimant must demonstrate, among other things, that the confinement was not privileged … . “To that end, it is settled that ‘[a]n otherwise unlawful detention is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction or parole authorities'” … . Here, there is no dispute that claimant’s confinement was pursuant to parole violation warrants that were valid on their face. Yet, according to claimant, because his sentence should have terminated by law on March 10, 2005, the Division acted without jurisdiction when it commenced the April 2005 parole revocation proceeding, revoked his parole and thereafter subjected him to various periods of incarceration.

“‘There is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter. The former is privileged, the latter is not'” … .

While the [Division of Parole’s] ….interpretation of Executive Law former § 259-j (3-a) may well have been mistaken, any such “error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant’s claim of privilege” … . The statute vested the Division with the authority to grant a termination of sentence under certain described circumstances, and interpreting the provisions that implement such power is a legitimate part of the Division’s function .. . The Division made a reasoned judgment …[which] was neither inconsistent with nor contrary to extant judicial authority … . Thus, at most, the Division “acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence [thereof], and its conduct therefore was privileged”… . Marsh v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03320, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

,

Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment properly survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: “

Although liability for false arrest and false imprisonment generally will not be imposed where a civilian complainant merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities rather than taking ” an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ . . . with the intent that [the] plaintiff be confined” …, we conclude that the complaint and plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion here sufficiently allege that defendant’s employees made false statements to investigators with the intent of having plaintiff be arrested and confined … . Harrison v Samaritan Med. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 03971, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, ,

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

 

,

Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not Privileged

The Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims, finding that claimant’s confinement was not privileged.  Claimant had completed his sentence at the time of sentencing but he was held for a month:

…[I]n order to succeed on a claim of false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant was required to show “that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged”… . The first three elements have undoubtedly been satisfied and, accordingly, the question distills to whether claimant’s confinement by DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] was privileged. The facts leading up to his detention are not in dispute and, after reviewing them, we agree with the Court of Claims that the confinement was not privileged.

Claimant was sentenced to a prison term as the result of his conviction and, “where a facially valid order issued by a court with proper jurisdiction directs confinement, that confinement is privileged” … . That being said, DOCCS was “‘conclusively bound’ by the terms of the sentence and commitment order,” which unambiguously directed that claimant be released after 1½ years of confinement … . DOCCS continued to confine claimant after that period had ended and, given the absence of any order that required it to do so, its actions were not privileged … . Miller v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00408, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

, ,

Proper Jury Instructions in False Imprisonment Case Based Upon Detention During the Execution of a Search Warrant Explained

The Second Department set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on liability and damages because the jury was not properly instructed.  The plaintiff was detained at gunpoint while the police executed a search warrant based upon (apparently wrong) information provided by a confidential informant. The issues which should have been presented to the jury were whether the presumption of probable cause for the search warrant was rebutted and whether the “limited authority” to detain during a search was exceeded:

The Supreme Court erred when it instructed the jury to, in effect, apply the Aguilar-Spinelli test to determine the validity of the search warrant. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, as applied in a criminal prosecution, where probable cause is predicated in whole or in part upon the hearsay statements of an informant, it must be demonstrated that the informant is reliable and had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge … . By contrast, in a trial on the issue of liability for false imprisonment, there is a presumption of probable cause for the detention which the plaintiff must rebut with evidence that the warrant was procured based upon the false or unsubstantiated statements of a police officer … .* * *

The Supreme Court should have instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of probable cause by establishing that the NYPD presented “false or unsubstantiated statements” to the Criminal Court Judge to procure the issuance of the warrant … . * * *

We further note that police officers executing a search warrant have “limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” …, and are “privileged to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention of the occupants of the place to be searched” … . Accordingly, if warranted by the evidence presented at the new trial, the Supreme Court should direct the jury to determine, in the context of evaluating whether [plaintiff’s] confinement was privileged, whether the police officers, even if they possessed probable cause to enter the apartment initially, exceeded the scope of their limited authority to detain the occupants of the apartment… . Ali v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08310, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, , , ,

The Existence of Probable Cause Required Dismissal of Causes of Action for False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution and Violation of Civil Rights (42 USC 1983)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the existence of probable cause was a complete defense to the causes of action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violation of civil rights (42 USC 1983):

The existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to causes of action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution …, including causes of action asserted pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 to recover damages for the deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law that are the federal-law equivalents of state common-law false arrest and malicious prosecution causes of action … . Generally, probable cause is established where an identified crime victim “communicates to the arresting officer information affording a credible ground for believing the offense was committed and identifies the accused as the perpetrator” … .

The appellants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing the existence of probable cause for the plaintiff’s arrest. Paulos v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07994, 2nd Dept 11-19=-14

 

, , , , ,

Sheriff’s (Lack of) Liability Under Respondeat Superior, Elements of Malicious Prosection, Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment and Libel Per Se Explained

In a lengthy and detailed decision the Fourth Department explained the negligence actions against the sheriff based on respondeat superior were properly dismissed, the action for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed (because the underlying criminal action was not dismissed on the merits and could be renewed), but the actions for abuse of process, false imprisonment, and libel per se should not have been dismissed.  The decision is too lengthy to summarize here, but it includes detailed explanations of the sheriff’s immunity from suit under respondeat superior and the elements of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and libel per se. The action stemmed from the allegation plaintiff was falsely accused of stealing a computer.  D’Amico v Correctional Med Care Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op -5737, 4th Dept 8-8-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Arrested Without a Warrant Based Upon Illegally Seized Evidence Granted Summary Judgment in False Arrest/Imprisonment Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his false arrest/imprisonment cause of action. Plaintiff was arrested without an arrest warrant based upon evidence seized in an illegal search:

“In order to prevail on a cause of action seeking to recover damages for false arrest or imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was aware of the resulting confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . ” The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim'” … .When an arrest is made without a warrant, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and a defendant must then show that a factual question exists as to whether the arrest was based on probable cause … . Evidence which is illegally obtained in violation of a plaintiff’s rights may not be used to establish probable cause … . Fakoya v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01709, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, ,

Mistakes Leading to Miscalculation of Defendant’s Sentence Privileged

The Third Department determined plaintiff's false imprisonment action against the state was properly dismissed.  Although there were errors resuliting in the erroneous calculation of defendant's sentence, the erroneous actions were privileged:

In order to state a claim for false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant was required to demonstrate that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged … . As there is no dispute as to the first three elements, we are left to consider whether defendant's confinement of claimant indeed was privileged.

As the Court of Appeals recently reiterated, “[a] detention, otherwise unlawful, is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction” … .Here, regardless of the validity of the sentence actually imposed, the asserted ambiguity in the sentence and commitment order or the reasonableness of [Department of Correctional Services'] interpretation thereof, there is no question that the sentencing court had jurisdiction over claimant, and the record does not otherwise suggest that the underlying process was defective. Accordingly, we are satisfied that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that its detention of claimant was privileged. * * *

Although DOCS' determination, which was predicated upon its analysis of the relevant sentencing statutes and claimant's criminal history, proved to be erroneous, that error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant's claim of privilege … . Simply put, DOCS – in treating claimant's sentence as running consecutively to his prior undischarged term of imprisonment – acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence of jurisdiction, and its conduct therefore was privileged … . Hudson v State of New York, 516333, 3rd Dept 5-6-14

 

, , , ,

Imprisonment and Prosecution Based Upon the Violation of an Administratively Imposed Period of Post Release Supervision Gave Rise to Valid False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the State

In a lengthy and thorough opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined that the claimant, who was imprisoned and prosecuted based upon an administratively imposed “post release supervision” (PRS) violation, was entitled to summary judgment on his false imprisonment cause of action and had stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  The claimant was held in custody and prosecuted after the Court of Appeals had ruled that only the sentencing court can impose a term of post release supervision (Garner v NYS Dept of Correctional Services, 10 NY3d 358 [2008]):

…[C]aimant sufficiently alleged that his confinement was not privileged and it was defendant’s burden to establish that its confinement of claimant after Garner was privileged; defendant failed in the Court of Claims to produce a Division of Parole arrest warrant or a court order so as to demonstrate their validity or that the arrest or confinement of claimant was privileged … .   Further, to clarify, claimant does not challenge his arrest prior to Garner but, rather, premises his claims on his continued detention and reincarceration – after Garner – for a parole violation based upon an administrativelyimposed PRS term that Garner clearly held was invalid, i.e., he raises a claim for false imprisonment and not for false arrest. * * *

…[D]efendant does not have immunity for the actions of its parole officials.  To be sure, inherently discretionary parole decisions of government officials have been recognized to be quasi-judicial decisions entitled to absolute immunity … .  “Where, however, the official has stepped outside the scope of his [or her] authority and acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or without a colorable claim of authority, there is plainly no entitlement to absolute immunity, even if the underlying acts are . . . quasi-judicial in nature” … .  That is, “[t]here is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter.  The former is privileged, the latter is not”… . * * *

We similarly conclude that claimant stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  To make out a claim for malicious prosecution, claimant must establish: “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the [claimant], (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” …. .  … On the second prong, claimant need not “demonstrate innocence” of the parole violation in order to satisfy that favorable termination prong; rather, claimant can satisfy it by showing that “there can be no further prosecution of the [alleged parole violation]” … .  We believe it self evident, under the facts here and despite the lack of state law on point, that defendant could not, after Sparber and Garner, ever lawfully prosecute claimant on a parole violation that occurred before those decisions, where the PRS in effect at the time of the alleged violation was imposed by DOCS and was, as such, a nullity… Moulton v State of New York, 515096, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

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