| Reape v City of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07390 [66 AD3d 755] |
| October 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Harold Reape, Respondent, v City of New York et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Harold Reape, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, thedefendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated September 10, 2008, as denied their cross motion forsummary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thedefendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recoverdamages for malicious prosecution is granted.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for false arrest and maliciousprosecution. The causes of action to recover damages for false arrest previously were dismissedby the Supreme Court and are not at issue on this appeal. With respect to the maliciousprosecution cause of action, a plaintiff cannot prevail on such a claim if the police officers hadprobable cause to believe that the plaintiff committed the underlying crime (see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe PoliceDept., 3 AD3d 561, 562 [2004]; Kandekore v Town of Greenburgh, 243 AD2d610 [1997]). Indeed, once probable cause for the arrest has been demonstrated, it justifies theensuing criminal proceeding and thus negates an essential element of a malicious prosecutioncause of action (see Fortunato v City ofNew York, 63 AD3d 880, 881 [2009]). Probable cause requires only informationsufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed (see People vBigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]). Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing thatthere was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff (see People v Skyles, 266 AD2d 321[1999]; People v Brown, 128 AD2d 886 [1987]; People v Halberg, 254 AD2d808 [1998]; People v Nichols, 156 AD2d 129 [1989]). In opposition, the plaintiff failedto raise a triable issues of fact.
Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause ofaction to recover damages for malicious prosecution (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.