Lawson v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 28 April 2011 |
| Citation | 83 A.D.3d 609,922 N.Y.S.2d 54,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03342 |
| Parties | Ana LAWSON, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant,v.CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for appellants-respondents.Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent-appellant.GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered April 5, 2010, which, in this action alleging, inter alia, false arrest, unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.
Defendant Police Department arrested plaintiff without a warrant and charged her with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees. Although the lack of a warrant raised a presumption of a lack of probable cause for her arrest and imprisonment ( see Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 458, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310 [1975], cert. denied 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257 [1975] ), defendants established that no triable issue of fact exists as to whether there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff, thereby providing a complete defense to plaintiff's claims ( see Arzeno v. Mack, 39 A.D.3d 341, 833 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2007]; Marrero v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 556, 557, 824 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2006] ). Defendants demonstrated that it was undisputed that the police identified plaintiff based on a reliable confidential informant; the police recovered narcotics and paraphernalia in an apartment bedroom near plaintiff's clothing and other possessions; and plaintiff admitted that she had been storing her belongings and staying in the apartment for days. Plaintiff's argument that she did not actually reside in the apartment does not demonstrate a lack of probable cause ( see People v. Mayo, 59 A.D.3d 250, 254–255, 873 N.Y.S.2d 584 [2009], affd. 13 N.Y.3d 767, 886 N.Y.S.2d 867, 915 N.E.2d 1165 [2009] ).
Furthermore, the subsequent indictment of plaintiff raised a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soto v. City of N.Y.
...indictment "raised a presumption of probable cause, even though the indictment was subsequently dismissed."); Lawson v. City of New York., 83 A.D.3d 609, 922 N.Y.S.2d 54, 55 (2011) ("The dismissal of the indictment upon the People's motion, based on the conclusion that the evidence against ......
-
Mendez v. City of N.Y.
...evidence, that they have withheld evidence or (that they have) otherwise acted in bad faith"]; see also Lawson v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 609, 610, 922 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2011], lv. dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 952, 950 N.Y.S.2d 99, 973 N.E.2d 197 [2012] ["(t)he dismissal of the indictment up......
-
Victory v. Pataki, 02-CV-0031
...violation was clearly supported by probable cause, which is a complete defense to a claim of maliciousprosecution. Lawson v. City of N.Y., 83 A.D.3d 609 (1st Dep't 2011). For these reasons, the third cause of action is dismissed with respect to the Syracuse Defendants. b. Negligence In the ......
-
Hernandez v. City of New York
...raised a presumption of probable cause, even though the indictment was subsequently dismissed ( see Lawson v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 609, 922 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2011],lv. dismissed19 N.Y.3d 952, 950 N.Y.S.2d 99, 973 N.E.2d 197 [2012];Arzeno v. Mack, 39 A.D.3d 341, 833 N.Y.S.2d 480 [......