From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campo v. Wolosin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 17, 1995
211 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Summary

addressing malicious prosecution claim

Summary of this case from Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.

Opinion

January 17, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We reject the defendants' contention that the plaintiff's cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution was barred by the applicable one-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 215). A cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution accrued when the criminal proceeding terminated favorably to the plaintiff (see, Whitmore v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 638; Boose v. City of Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59; Giglio v Delesparo, 46 A.D.2d 928). The criminal proceeding against the plaintiff was dismissed on October 15, 1991, and this action was commenced on or about February 19, 1992, well within one year of dismissal. Thus, the cause of action was timely interposed.

We also reject the defendants' contention that the dismissal of the criminal charges against the plaintiff was not on the merits, and thus, the malicious prosecution claim cannot be maintained. The criminal charges against the plaintiffs were dismissed for failure to prosecute when it was indicated that the defendants had lost interest in prosecuting the charges and had no intention of returning to New York State to do so. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the dismissal was indicative of the plaintiff's innocence of the charges, and thus he may maintain this cause of action (see, Halberstadt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 194 N.Y. 1; Mondello v. Mondello, 161 A.D.2d 690; Miller v. Star, 123 A.D.2d 750; Loeb v. Teitelbaum, 77 A.D.2d 92).

The defendants' contention that summary judgment should have been granted to them because there clearly was probable cause for bringing the criminal charges against the plaintiff is unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Campo v. Wolosin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 17, 1995
211 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

addressing malicious prosecution claim

Summary of this case from Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.

applying C.P.L.R. § 215 to common law malicious prosecution claim

Summary of this case from Richardson v. City of N.Y.
Case details for

Campo v. Wolosin

Case Details

Full title:LEON CAMPO, Respondent, v. CUSTIC WOLOSIN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jan 17, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

Van v. Grand Casinos of Miss., Inc.

Although the New York Court of Appeals has not yet decided this precise issue, the Second Circuit found the…

Rohrs v. Rohrs

a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to damages from the sum of $50,000 to the sum of…