Opinion
November 19, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
According every favorable inference to the allegations of the plaintiff's second cause of action (see generally, Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391; Pollnow v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 107 A.D.2d 10, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 778), we conclude that a prima facie claim based on the tort of malicious prosecution has been stated. As noted by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff's allegations, construed liberally, allow for proof that the underlying action brought by the appellant was "`abandoned at the instance of the [appellant] under circumstances which fairly imply the plaintiff's innocence'" (Pagliarulo v. Pagliarulo, 30 A.D.2d 840, quoting 1 Harper and James, Law of Torts § 4.4, at 307; see also, Loeb v. Teitelbaum, 77 A.D.2d 92, 97-101; Louvad Realty Corp. v. Anfang, 267 App. Div. 567; 59 N.Y. Jur 2d, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution, § 63, at 325; Annotation, Nature of Termination of Civil Action Required to Satisfy Element of Favorable Termination to Support Action for Malicious Prosecution, 30 ALR4th 572). We also agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff's complaint adequately alleges the remaining elements of the tort of malicious prosecution. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.