Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

DAVID J. OAKLEY, Appellant, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's argument that there was consistency between the jury's finding of probable cause on the false arrest cause of action and its finding that plaintiff had established malicious prosecution by defendant is at best speculative and ignores the Trial Judge's explicit instructions to the jury concerning the events involved in the determination whether there was probable cause. We cannot say, therefore, that the Trial Judge abused his discretion in directing entry of judgment for defendant city on the malicious prosecution cause of action (see CPLR 4111, subd [c]; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 518, n 5; Kennard v Welded Tank Constr. Co., 25 N.Y.2d 324, 330).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OAKLEY v. CITY OF ROCHESTER
(Nov 11, 1980)