Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Smith v. Village of Freeport Police Dept.
Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 1521Docket: 2018-14427
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 3, 2020; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Smith v. Village of Freeport Police Department, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants on claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. The plaintiffs, Duane Smith and Sunset Entertainment Media, Inc., alleged wrongful actions stemming from a traffic stop by Officer K. Hassell, who discovered Smith had a suspended New York license and that the minivan was unregistered. To establish false arrest, plaintiffs must demonstrate intent to confine, awareness of confinement, lack of consent, and absence of privilege. The court found no confinement occurred during the encounter, and the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact. For malicious prosecution, plaintiffs needed to prove a criminal proceeding was initiated, it concluded favorably, lacked probable cause, and was motivated by malice. The court noted that the evidence from Officer Hassell's computer search provided probable cause, as it indicated Smith’s license was suspended and the vehicle unregistered, fulfilling the criteria for probable cause. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. Defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that Hassell had probable cause to impound the vehicle and issue traffic citations for violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511. The plaintiffs did not present a triable issue of fact in opposition. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution claim is affirmed. Additionally, the plaintiffs' vague and general allegations were inadequate to support claims under 42 USC § 1983. The court concurs with the Supreme Court's ruling to dismiss the 42 USC § 1983 violation claim due to the plaintiffs' failure to raise a triable issue of fact. Judges Rivera, Chambers, Miller, and Connolly concurred. Clerk of the Court: Aprilanne Agostino.