Summary
affirming denial of summary judgment where there was a genuine issue of fact whether the civilian defendant provided false information to police resulting in plaintiff's arrest and prosecution
Summary of this case from Moritz v. Town of WarwickOpinion
2002-04721, 2002-09214
Argued April 21, 2003.
June 9, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for malicious prosecution and civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered April 12, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendants Nassau County and Kyle Rose for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered April 24, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Debra Nelson which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action insofar as asserted against her, and the defendant Debra Nelson cross-appeals from so much of the order entered April 24, 2002, as denied those branches of her motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second, third, and sixth causes of action with regard to a robbery charge and the eighth cause of action alleging conversion.
Charles G. Mills, Glen Cove, N.Y., for appellant-respondent.
Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David B. Goldin of counsel), for respondents.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants Nassau County and Kyle Rose payable by the plaintiff.
Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, he failed to proffer any admissible evidence of unconstitutional policies in Nassau County necessitating an injunction against the municipality (see R.A.C. Group v. Board of Educ., 295 A.D.2d 489; Mann v. Alvarez, 242 A.D.2d 318).
The defendant Debra Nelson's contention that she cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution and false arrest as a civilian complainant is without merit as there are triable issues of fact as to whether she intentionally provided false evidence to the police resulting in the plaintiff's arrest and prosecution (see Brown v. Sears Roebuck Co., 297 A.D.2d 205; Warner v. Druckier, 266 A.D.2d 2; Du Chateau v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 253 A.D.2d 128).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.