Fields v. Victory Chain Store, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1969 |
| Citation | 59 Misc.2d 814,300 N.Y.S.2d 688 |
| Parties | Patricia FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. VICTORY CHAIN STORE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The defendant has moved for an order to compel plaintiff to answer certain questions asked her during an examination before trial. The plaintiff has cross-moved for a protective order.
The plaintiff claims that on May 17, 1967 she was maliciously arrested by the manager of the defendant Victory Chain Store at 514 North James Street in Rome and turned over to the police charged with petit larceny for allegedly stealing three cartons of cigarettes valued at $9.12. The plaintiff was acquitted following a jury trial in Rome City Court on September 29, 1967. Thereafter she instituted this action for false arrest and malicious prosecution.
At an examination before trial requested by the defendant, certain questions regarding the plaintiff's marital status and former employment were asked by defendant's attorney which plaintiff, on advice of her counsel, refused to answer and regarding which subjects she has asked this Court for a protective order.
From the pleadings and the questions answered at the examination before trial without objection, it appears that the plaintiff is a thirty year old resident of the City of Rome, New York, having resided in that City for a period of about nine years. She is presently married to Howard Brockway, to whom she was married on August 12, 1967. At the time of the incident, on May 17, 1967, which gives rise to this lawsuit, she was divorced. Her name by her previous marriage was Azevado. Her maiden name was Fields. On May 17, 1967 she was not employed but approximately one year before she was employed in New York City as a dancer at Small's Paradise. In September, 1967 she was employed at Brooks Fashions Store in Rome and at the time of the examination before trial on January 27, 1969 she was employed as a dancer at Nino's restaurant in Rome.
The complaint in the action alleges that plaintiff 'was injured in her good name and good reputation in the community' and seeks damages in the sum of $75,000 for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The defendant contends that in an action of this nature it should be permitted an unlimited inquiry of the plaintiff regarding her previous and present marital status and her previous employment record.
The operative provisions of the CPLR are 3101(a) which provides for full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the defense of an action and 3103(a) which grants the Court authority to make a protective order limiting, conditioning, or regulating disclosure, within its discretion, which is to be exercised in order to prevent unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment or prejudice to any person.
The plaintiff's complaint alleges a cause of action for false arrest and malicious prosecution. To state a cause of action for false arrest the plaintiff must claim: (1) that an arrest and detention has taken place; (2) that the arrest was procured without a warrant or was otherwise illegal; (3) that the arrest was authorized by the defendant, and (4) damages. (5 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y. Practice, False Arrest or Imprisonment, § 29.838). A concise definition for an action in malicious prosecution is stated in Burt v. Smith, 181 N.Y. 1, at page 5, 73 N.E. 495, at page 496 (1905): 'A malicious prosecution is one that is begun in malice, without probable cause to believe it can succeed, and which finally ends in failure'. To state a cause of action for malicious prosecution damages must also be pleaded. (5 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y.Practice, Malicious Prosecution, § 29.851).
The causes of action for false arrest and malicious prosecution are fundamentally different. The gist of the action for false arrest is the unlawful detention of the person of the plaintiff by reason of the unlawful act of the person arresting him. (Krafft v. State of New York, 52 Misc.2d 35, 38, 275 N.Y.S.2d 109, 113 (Ct. of Claims, (1966)). The foundation for an action in malicious prosecution is not the wrong done to the plaintiff by his direct detention, but the injury for which damages are recoverable are those which may be inflicted upon the feelings, reputation and character by a false accusation as well as that caused by arrest. This element is in many cases the gravamen of the action. (Halberstadt v. New York Life Insurance Co., 194 N.Y. 1, 7, 86 N.E. 801, 802, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 293 (1909)).
The measure of damages for false arrest is such a sum as will fairly and reasonably compensate the injured person for the injuries caused by the defendant's wrongful act. Mental suffering, including indignity, humiliation, shame and disgrace are injuries to the feelings of a person unlawfully arrested and are proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc.
...see Schultz v. Greenwood Cemetery, 190 N.Y. 276, 278, 83 N.E. 41; Burns v. Erben, 40 N.Y. 463, 466; Fields v. Victory Chain Store, 59 Misc.2d 814, 816, 300 N.Y.S.2d 688, 691). True, modern writers often define 'arrest' for convenience as a formal arrest, but the term 'detention' continues t......
-
Kelly v. Exxon Corp.
...the trial court should not have granted the motion in limine, appellant refers to the language found in Fields v. Victory Chain Store, Inc., 59 Misc.2d 814, 300 N.Y.S.2d 688, 691-92 (S.Ct. Oneida Co., 'The measure of damages in an action for malicious prosecution include injuries to the pla......
- Abate v. Mundt
-
Guion v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. (Lord and Taylor Division)
...and loss of earnings, we feel that the award of $10,000 is not unreasonable and we therefore affirm. See Fields v. Victory Chain Stores, 59 Misc.2d 814, 816, 300 N.Y.S.2d 688, 691. We find no justification for the punitive damages award. Shoplifting is a serious problem. General Business La......