From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivera v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 7, 1984
105 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 7, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.


Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant Caiola's motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred by refusing to grant defendant Caiola's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Plaintiffs' cause of action based on false arrest must fail because they were arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant ( Phillips v City of Syracuse, 84 A.D.2d 957, aff'd. on opn below 57 N.Y.2d 996). Although an arresting officer may not insulate himself from liability by procuring an arrest warrant based on false statements ( Ross v Village of Wappingers Falls, 62 A.D.2d 892), there is no allegation in the complaint that defendant's statements in support of the warrant were false. The malicious prosecution claim must also fail, because the supporting deposition of the store employee provided probable cause as a matter of law ( Brown v City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 15, 17, affd 60 N.Y.2d 893; Veras v Truth Verification Corp., 87 A.D.2d 381, 384, aff'd. 57 N.Y.2d 947). Finally, plaintiffs' civil rights claim (US Code, tit 42, § 1983) must also fail. Since defendant was acting pursuant to a valid warrant, there is no encroachment upon plaintiffs' liberty without due process of law ( Baker v McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 143-144; Appletree v City of Hartford, 555 F. Supp. 224, 226).


Summaries of

Rivera v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 7, 1984
105 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Rivera v. County of Monroe

Case Details

Full title:JOHN RIVERA et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF MONROE et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Titus v. Hill

Plaintiff's fourth cause of action properly alleges a claim under section 1983 of title 42 of the United…

Gilmore v. Gold

Completely consistent with this premise, the complaint wholly lacks any charge that Murdock had any…