Carrington v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 14 February 1994
• Parties: William CARRINGTON, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Wall Furniture Outlet, Ltd. of Yorkville, Inc., a/k/a W.F.O., a/k/a Wall Furniture Outlet, Defendant-Respondent, Sharut Furniture, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 721

607 N.Y.S.2d 721

201 A.D.2d 525

William CARRINGTON, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant Wall Furniture Outlet, Ltd. of Yorkville, Inc., a/k/a W.F.O., a/k/a Wall Furniture Outlet, Defendant-Respondent Sharut Furniture, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 14, 1994.

Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York City (Jeffrey E. Rothman, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Rubert & Gross, P.C., Brooklyn (Soledad Rubert, of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Smith, Mazure, Director & Wilkins, P.C., New York City (Robert P. Siegel, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, PIZZUTO and JOY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest and imprisonment, the defendant Sharut Furniture, Inc. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated November 25, 1991, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and any cross claims against it, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of that order as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Wall Furniture Outlet, Ltd., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the motion of Sharut Furniture, Inc., and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion, dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and all cross claims against it, and severing the action against the remaining defendants; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiffs to Wall Furniture Outlet, Ltd., and Sharut Furniture, Inc.

On May 19, 1988, the plaintiff William Carrington was expecting delivery of a five-piece wall unit which he had purchased for his apartment from Wall Furniture Outlet, Ltd (hereinafter WFO). After delivering two of the pieces, the deliverypersons told Carrington that they could not fit the other pieces in the elevator and that they had to remove the first two pieces from the apartment. When Carrington refused to allow them to do so, some words were exchanged and the deliverypersons left. A few minutes later, Carrington answered the doorbell and was confronted by several police officers. After allegedly telling Carrington, "If you don't answer the questions here, you will answer them down at the precinct", an officer allegedly grabbed him by the collar, threw him down, handcuffed him, dragged him through the lobby of his building to a police car, and took him to the precinct, where he was handcuffed to a pole before being released.

We agree with the defendants WFO and Sharut Furniture, Inc. (hereinafter Sharut), that they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them. To establish a cause of action to recover damages for false arrest or imprisonment, the plaintiffs must show, inter alia, that the defendants intended to confine the plaintiff (see, Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310; Ferretti v. Town of Greenburgh, 191 A.D.2d 608, 610, 595 N.Y.S.2d 494). Because there is no claim that the deliverypersons, who the plaintiff alleges were employees of the defendant WFO, in any way restricted his ability to move, or confined him in any way, the plaintiffs must show that these defendants instigated his arrest, thereby making the police WFO's agents in accomplishing their intent to confine the...