Covert v. Westchester County
| Decision Date | 18 March 1992 |
| Parties | James COVERT and Robert Sanchez, Plaintiffs, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Marilyn J. Slaatten, Westchester County Atty., Michael J. McDermott (Asst. County Atty., of counsel), White Plains, for defendant.
Lecci, Wolin & Wolin, Hicksville, for plaintiffs.
This is an action for malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs were correction officers who were charged with assaulting an inmate by the name of Roche. Mr. Roche had properly filed an Information which was sufficient on its face pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Sections 100.40(1) and 100.15. As a result of that Information, the Hon. Robert R. Troup issued a local criminal court summons to bring the plaintiffs before the local criminal court. Those charges eventually resulted in a trial, and the plaintiffs were acquitted.
The tort of malicious prosecution is meant to protect the individual from unjustifiable litigation. It has as its essence the perversion of proper legal process. Broughton v. The State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310. Citing Prosser, Torts, 4th Edition, Section 119.
A requirement of a malicious prosecution action is that a prior judicial proceeding has been held. This prior judicial proceeding can be as formal as an indictment by a Grand Jury, or just the evaluation by a Magistrate of an affidavit supporting an application for a warrant of arrest. Broughton v. The State of New York, supra.
The tort of malicious prosecution requires an absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding. This is because a contrary rule would discourage the prosecution of crimes. The review of the application for a warrant of arrest will give rise to a presumption that the arrest pursuant to said warrant was based upon probable cause. Broughton v. The State of New York, supra.
It is well known that, in order to satisfy the requirements for a malicious prosecution action, the plaintiffs must satisfy the following four elements:
(1) That there was a commencement or a continuation of a criminal proceeding against them;
(2) That the criminal proceeding terminated in their favor;
(3) That there was an absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding; and
(4) That there was actual malice.
Broughton v. The State of New York, supra.
In this case, it is clear that the first two elements have been met: there was a commencement and a continuation of criminal proceedings; and there was a termination of those criminal proceedings in favor of the plaintiffs. The critical elements to be determined are whether or not there was an absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and whether or not there was actual malice.
It should be noted that plaintiffs in a malicious prosecution action must establish an absence of probable cause as part of their prima facie case. Martin v. The City of Albany, 42 N.Y.2d 13, 396 N.Y.S.2d 612, 364 N.E.2d 1304; and Mulder v. U.S. Slicing Machine Co., 228 N.Y. 88, 126 N.E. 517.
The existence of probable cause being a bar to the maintenance of a malicious prosecution action. Burt v. Smith, 181 N.Y. 1, 73 N.E. 495.
In determining whether or not there was probable cause for this criminal proceeding, the Court must look to the manner in which the criminal proceeding was instituted. That is, the Information signed by the complainant, Mr. Roche, and the local criminal court summons issued by Judge Troup.
The interesting question posed to this Court is whether the issuance by the local criminal court of a summons in this case is the equivalent of the issuance of an arrest warrant for the purpose of determining whether there was an absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding.
The accusatory instrument involved in this case was an Information. Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.05(1). Criminal Procedure Law 100.40(1) sets forth the requirements for a determination that the Information was sufficient on its face. It must be in compliance with the technical requirements of Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.15; the allegations taken, together with any supporting deposition, must provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense; and non-hearsay allegations and/or other supporting depositions must establish every element of the offense and the defendant's commission of the offense. A review of the information at hand indicates that it clearly satisfied these requirements of Criminal Procedure Law Section 100.40(1). Justice Troup of the local criminal court also came to the same conclusion.
Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 120.20(1), a local criminal court may issue a warrant for a defendant's arrest if a criminal action has been commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument and if the accusatory instrument is sufficient on its face. In the case at bar, an accusatory instrument was filed and it was sufficient on its face. Therefore, the local criminal court could have issued a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiffs (then criminal defendants). However, the local criminal court had another alternative before it, which it chose. Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 130.30, a local criminal court may issue a summons in any case in which, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 120.20, it is authorized to issue a warrant of arrest based upon an Information. That is precisely what was done in this case. The standards for it issuing the local criminal court summons were the very same standards which would have permitted it to issue a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiffs.
Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 130.10(1), the sole function of such a criminal court summons is to achieve the criminal defendant's court appearance for the purposes of arraignment. In fact, the Practice Commentaries to Criminal Procedure Law Section 130.10 (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A) clearly indicate that a criminal court summons is comparable to a warrant of arrest and its function is the same--that is, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stead-Bowers v. Langley
... ... The Hennepin County Sheriff's Department conducted a criminal investigation of the claim and found it to be lacking in ... involved, requires proof defendants instituted proceeding that is adjudicatory in nature); Covert v. Westchester County, 153 Misc.2d 733, 582 N.Y.S.2d 937, 938 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1992) (prior judicial ... ...
- Covert v. County of Westchester
-
Bailey v. Martin
... ... )Donna BAILEY, Plaintiff,v.Shaera MARTIN, Defendant.SC 2426-19City Court, New York, New York County.Decided November 19, 2020Donna Bailey, Plaintiff pro seShaera Martin, Defendant pro se Adam Seiden, ... , the plaintiff must establish the lack of probable cause as part of her prima facie case ( Covert v. Westchester County , 153 Misc 2d 733 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co. 1992) ). Probable cause, the ... ...