From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pandolfo v. Brodell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1957
3 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

Opinion

April 15, 1957


In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The allegation in the complaint that appellant had made a sworn accusation against respondent before a Judge of the District Court of Nassau County, who thereupon issued a warrant for her arrest, did not constitute an admission that there existed probable cause on appellant's part for belief that respondent was guilty of the charge made against her, so as to require the allegation of further facts sufficient to overcome the effect of such an admission. (Cf. Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 249 N.Y. 296, 300; Graham v. Buffalo Gen. Laundries Corp., 261 N.Y. 165, 168; Chernow v. Feldman, 251 App. Div. 329.) Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pandolfo v. Brodell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1957
3 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)
Case details for

Pandolfo v. Brodell

Case Details

Full title:CELESTE PANDOLFO, Respondent, v. IRWIN BRODELL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 1957

Citations

3 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

Citing Cases

Watson v. City of New York

It is not a defense that the Magistrate issued a summons based on the information furnished by the mother and…

Torrey v. Twiford

The allegation that the defendant acted maliciously and without probable cause was held sufficient in a…