From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schoonmaker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 16, 1983
94 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

May 16, 1983


The appeal is from an order of the Court of Claims (Lengyel, J.), dated July 28, 1982, which, inter alia, denied a cross motion to dismiss a claim for damages, inter alia, for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon the present posture of this case, the Court of Claims properly determined that there exists a factual dispute with respect to the circumstances of the termination of the underlying proceedings sufficient to bar summary judgment on the issue of malicious prosecution (see Loeb v Teitelbaum, 77 A.D.2d 92, 98, 101; cf. Whitmore v City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 638, 639, mot for lv to app dsmd 54 N.Y.2d 753). The appellants' contention that the claim, which was filed more than one year, but within two years, from the date of accrual, is barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations applicable to intentional tort actions (see CPLR 215, subd 3) was not raised upon the cross motion to dismiss. The issue is therefore not properly before this court. Titone, J.P., Lazer, Weinstein and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schoonmaker v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 16, 1983
94 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Schoonmaker v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND K. SCHOONMAKER, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al…

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

Date published: May 16, 1983

Citations

94 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Vogt v. Witmeyer

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff's first cause of action; New York State does not…

Tuck Industries, Inc. v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

With regard to Tuck's failure to determine the suitability of the latex by "testing and all other means"…