| Redmond v City of White Plains |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07733 [77 AD3d 902] |
| October 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Kevin Redmond, Appellant, v City of White Plains et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, and maliciousprosecution, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated October 22, 2009, as granted thosebranches of the motion of the defendants City of White Plains, Harry D. Pino, and Steven D.Demchuck which were for summary judgment dismissing his causes of action to recover for falsearrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the respondents demonstrated their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing his claims alleging false arrest, falseimprisonment, and malicious prosecution by submitting documentary evidence and depositiontestimony which established that there was probable cause, under all of the attendantcircumstances (see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]), to arrest him andcharge him with felony drug possession (see e.g. Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97NY2d 78, 85 [2001]; People vCarter, 60 AD3d 1103, 1104-1105 [2009]; People v Dais, 222 AD2d 1045[1995]). In opposition to the motion, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The few,minor discrepancies in the parties' accounts of the events which he cites were insufficient for thispurpose. The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit, inasmuch as the existence ofprobable cause constitutes a complete defense to the claims at issue on this appeal (seeMartinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d at 85; Marrero v City of New York, 33 AD3d 556, 557 [2006]; Jenkins v City of New York, 2 AD3d291, 292 [2003]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of therespondents' motion which were for summary judgment. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Lott,JJ., concur.