Lee v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 30 May 2000 |
| Citation | 272 A.D.2d 586,709 N.Y.S.2d 102 |
| Parties | ORRAIN LEE et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Krausman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. To establish a cause of action alleging false arrest and false imprisonment, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929; Straton v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 217 AD2d 576). Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the confinement was not privileged. The plaintiffs were detained by the police during the execution of a search warrant. Such a detention during the execution of a facially-valid search warrant is constitutionally permissible (see, Michigan v Summers, 452 US 692, 704-705; People v Soler, 92 AD2d 280). Furthermore, since the search warrant authorizing the plaintiffs' limited detention was issued by a Magistrate, a presumption of probable cause for the detention exists which the plaintiffs failed to rebut (see, Broughton v State of New York, supra, at 458). The confidential informant who supplied the police with information in this case personally appeared and testified before the Magistrate three days before the search warrant for the plaintiffs' apartment was issued, and there is no evidence that the warrant was procured based upon the false or unsubstantiated statements of a police officer (cf., Chase v Town of Camillus, 247 AD2d 851; Ross v Village of Wappingers Falls, 62 AD2d 892).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higginbotham v. City of N.Y.
...privileged.’ ” Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie,90 A.D.3d 841, 844, 935 N.Y.S.2d 583 (2d Dep't 2011)(quoting Lee v. City of N.Y.,272 A.D.2d 586, 586, 709 N.Y.S.2d 102 (2d Dep't 2000)).The defendants argue that the fourth element is not satisfied, because there was probable cause to arrest Hi......
-
Biswas v. City of N.Y.
...did not consent to the confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” Id. (quoting Lee v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 586, 709 N.Y.S.2d 102, 102 (App.Div.2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pelayo v. Port Auth., 893 F.Supp.2d 632, 639 (S.D.N.Y.2012). An......
-
Cain v. Cnty. of Niagara
...(quoting Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie, 90 A.D.3d 841, 845, 935 N.Y.S.2d 583, 589 (2d Dep't 2011) (quoting in turn Lee v. City of N.Y., 272 A.D.2d 586, 586, 709 N.Y.S.2d 102, 102 (2d Dep't 2000)) (see Docket No. 5, Defs. Memo. at 11). The key difference from Fourth Amendment seizure is th......
-
Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie
...The third cause of action alleged false arrest and false imprisonment, which are two names for the same tort ( see Lee v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 586, 709 N.Y.S.2d 102; Jackson v. Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 86 A.D.2d 860, 860–861, 447 N.Y.S.2d 320). To establish a cause of action al......