From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antonious v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1998
250 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed to the extent that it seeks review of the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Charles Raab; and it is further,

Ordered that judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents Dawud Muhammad and Goldome.

Insofar as the issues raised in this appeal pertain to the defendant Charles Raab, they could have been reviewed in connection with the plaintiff's appeal from an earlier order which granted Raab's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The dismissal of that appeal by decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 14, 1994, for failure to prosecute constituted an adjudication on the merits of all of the issues which could have been reviewed therein, and the plaintiffs are precluded from obtaining appellate review of those issues on the present appeal from the judgment (see, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350; Tepper v. Furino, 239 A.D.2d 405; Feeley v. Midas Props., 221 A.D.2d 314).

The remaining respondents are entitled to the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against them, as there is no cause of action in the State of New York sounding in negligent prosecution (see, Secard v. Department of Social Servs., 204 A.D.2d 425, 426-427; Pandolfo v. U.A. Cable Sys., 171 A.D.2d 1013). A plaintiff seeking damages for an injury resulting from a wrongful arrest and detention "may not recover under broad general principles of negligence * * * but must proceed by way of the traditional remedies of false arrest and imprisonment" (Boose v. City of Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 62; see, Stalteri v. County of Monroe, 107 A.D.2d 1071; Russo v. Village of Port Chester, 198 A.D.2d 408).

To the extent that the plaintiffs are alleging negligent misrepresentation, the record establishes that the plaintiffs did not rely to their detriment on any information provided by the respondents. Thus, that cause of action must fail (see, Ossining Union Free School Dist. v. Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417, 425; Collins v. Brown, 129 A.D.2d 902).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Antonious v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1998
250 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Antonious v. Muhammad

Case Details

Full title:NASHAAT N. ANTONIOUS et al., Appellants, v. DAWUD MUHAMMAD et al.…

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

Date published: May 4, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 158

Citing Cases

Antonious v. Muhammad

See id. Plaintiffs appealed the State Action Judgment before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second…

Vetro v. Suffolk Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office

Regarding plaintiff's claim that defendants breached their duties, it is well settled that New York courts…