The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Two eyewitnesses to the robbery identified plaintiffs as the perpetrators. Thus, probable cause existed for the arrest and prosecution of plaintiffs (see, People v. Morro, 165 A.D.2d 719,lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 964). Given the existence of probable cause for the arrests and prosecution, the claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution must fail (see, Graham v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 435, 720 N.Y.S.2d 452; Akande v. City of New York, 275 A.D.2d 671; Minott v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 265, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 1000). Moreover, the evidence shows merely that defendant Mays gave certain information to the police, or encouraged others to do so. Such behavior is not actionable (see, Du Chateau v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 253 A.D.2d 128, 131; Celnick v. Freitag, 242 A.D.2d 436; Buccieri v. Franzreb, 201 A.D.2d 356, 357-358). Plaintiffs' speculation that Mays may have acted more culpably than the record indicates is insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563).
Since plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 causes for violation of their civil rights are predicated exclusively on their legally untenable claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 causes are also untenable and should also have been dismissed (see,Zwecker v. Clinch, 279 A.D.2d 572, 720 N.Y.S.2d 150; Kandekore v. Town of Greenburgh, 243 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 810).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.