Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

MacFawn v. Kresler

88 N.Y.2d 859

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1996-05-02
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a dismissal of the information without prejudice for facial insufficiency may not serve as the basis for a malicious prosecution claim
  • holding that action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges, without prejudice, and the prosecutors did not amend or refile
  • holding that plaintiff failed to state claim for malicious prosecution where the court did not reach the merits and the question of plaintiffs guilt or innocence, but instead dismissed case on procedural grounds
  • explaining that a favorable termination happens “when the final disposition of the proceeding involves the merits and indicates the accused’s innocence”
  • "A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused, for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, when the final disposition of the proceeding involves the merits and indicates the accused's innocence."
  • interest of justice dismissal of theft charge based on court’s judgment that facts alleged by information insufficient does not support subsequent malicious prosecution claim
  • “A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused, for purposes 3 of a malicious prosecution claim, when the final disposition of the proceeding 4 involves the merits and indicates the accused’s innocence.”
  • information dismissed on procedural grounds, namely that facts alleged by the People were not legally sufficient to support the charge, did not terminate favorably to employee and as such, employee failed to state cause of action for malicious prosecution

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MacFawn v. Kresler. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
75 opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff in this malicious prosecution action bears the burden of establishing that the underlying criminal action terminated favorably to him (Ward v Silverberg, 85 NY2d 993; Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 NY2d 420; Martin v City of Albany, 42 NY2d 13, 16). A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused, for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, when the final disposition of the proceeding involves the merits and indicates the accused’s innocence (see, Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., supra; Halberstadt v New York Life Ins. Co., 194 NY 1).

In this case the information charging plaintiff with attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, theft of a credit card (Penal Law § 155.30 [4]; § 110.00), was dismissed by the court because it concluded that the facts alleged by the People were not legally sufficient to support the charge (CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]). The People were at liberty to amend the information to correct the deficiency but did not do so. Neither did they refile the charge as they could have (see, People v Nuccio, 78 NY2d 102, 104).

Manifestly, the criminal action was disposed of on procedural grounds. The court did not reach the merits and the question of plaintiff’s guilt or innocence remained unanswered after the court dismissed the information. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint in the civil action failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution and it was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.