(DOWNLOAD) "Richard W. Colegrove v. City Corning Et Al." by Supreme Court of New York ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Richard W. Colegrove v. City Corning Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 05, 1976
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
[54 A.D.2d 1093 Page 1093] Memorandum: Plaintiff-respondent sued defendants-appellants, City of Corning and Patrolman Terrance A. Davies, for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The trial court properly dismissed the cause of action for false arrest and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of $55,000 as damages for malicious prosecution. Defendants contend that there was insufficient proof to submit the issues of want of probable cause and actual malice to the jury; that the trial court's charge contained misstatements of law; that improper evidence was received on the issue of damages and that the amount found by the jury was excessive. The facts leading up to the securing of the warrant are uncomplicated. Plaintiff owned and operated a retail jewelry and watch repair business. He was arrested for having in his possession, in violation of section 220.45 of the Penal Law, three oil applicators which he used in the repair of watches and clocks and which were purchased from a jewelry supply house. The defendant patrolman had secured a warrant for plaintiff's arrest which charged him with having in his possession hypodermic instruments. There was no claim by the police, and a complete absence of any evidence at trial, that the instruments were used or sold for use as hypodermic needles. The one instrument which was being used contained oil. The matter was submitted to a Grand Jury which refused to indict plaintiff. It is axiomatic that in determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence the reviewing court must view the proof most favorable to the verdict (Dowell v Remmer, 24 A.D.2d 542, 543; Hannan v Schmidt, 18 A.D.2d 854). The essentials of malicious prosecution were succinctly stated in Munoz v City of New York (18 N.Y.2d 6, 9) where the court, quoting from Burt v Smith (181 NY 1, 5) stated: A malicious prosecution is one that is begun in malice, without probable [54 A.D.2d 1093 Page 1094]