Opinion
June 4, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department, Ostrau, P.J., Parness, McCooe, JJ.
In this action brought to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment, and for malicious prosecution, there was conflicting evidence as to whether defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff and thus, the issue of false arrest was properly one for the jury to determine (Parkin v. Cornell Univ., 78 N.Y.2d 523, 529).
As to the cause of action for malicious prosecution, we agree with the Appellate Term. The termination of the instant criminal proceeding against plaintiff cannot be construed as a termination "in favor of the accused" (Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 457). Under the factual circumstances here presented, the termination of the criminal proceeding against plaintiff does not establish either a lack of reasonable grounds for the prosecution or the innocence of the plaintiff (see, Hollender v. Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 425-426; Loeb v. Teitelbaum, 77 A.D.2d 92, 100, amended 80 A.D.2d 838).
While plaintiff did suffer humiliation and mental anguish as a result of the ordeal, we find that the damages awarded by the jury are grossly excessive (see, Burlett v. County of Saratoga, 111 A.D.2d 426). On the facts presented, the compensatory damages should be reduced to $60,000 for plaintiff.
We have considered all other issues and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
Plaintiff has voluntarily discontinued that portion of her cause of action seeking punitive damages.