Hudson Valley Marine, Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt
79 A.D.3d 700
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff corporation owns Hudson River marina property; Miller is Town Deputy Director of Code Enforcement; Conlon is Town fire inspector.
- Town issued stop-work order for placing fill in river without permit; Miller issued three appearance tickets for permit violations; Conlon issued a fourth ticket.
- Town filed civil action seeking permanent injunction; preliminary injunction denied for failure to show likelihood of success.
- Town voluntarily discontinued the injunction action; criminal charges later dropped without prejudice.
- Plaintiff sues for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligent training/supervision, and §1983/§1985(3) claims; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Court affirms dismissal of claims, including §1983 against Town, qualified immunity for Miller/Conlon, and failure to show termination favorable to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can prove favorable termination for malicious prosecution | Plaintiff asserts termination favorable to it occurred. | Town contends termination was not on merits and not favorable. | No favorable termination shown |
| Whether abuse of process claim lacks improper collateral objective | Abuse of process claim alleges improper use of process to obtain collateral objective. | Defendants had lawful purposes; no collateral objective. | Granted; no triable issue |
| Whether §1983 claim against Town survives as policy/custom | Town acts under color of law violating rights; policy or custom alleged. | Town presented evidence of no policy or custom causing rights violation. | Town entitled to dismissal |
| Whether §1983 claims against Miller and Conlon survive under qualified immunity | Defendants violated clearly established rights; no immunity. | Defendants acted reasonably under Town Code; qualified immunity applies. | Qualified immunity established; dismissal upheld |
| Whether §1985(3) claim survives | Plaintiff claims class-based animus motivated conduct. | No evidence of class-based discriminatory animus. | Claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v East End Plastic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, P.C., 47 AD3d 608 (2008) (malicious prosecution elements; favorable termination standard)
- Furgang & Adwar, LLP v Fiber-Shield Indus., Inc., 55 AD3d 665 (2008) (malicious prosecution termination analysis)
- Pagliarulo v Pagliarulo, 30 AD2d 840 (1968) (favorable termination inference)
- Berisic v Winckelman, 40 AD3d 561 (2007) (abuse of process; lawful objective defense)
- Pomeranz v Bourla, 257 AD2d 516 (1999) (abuse of process; collateral objective defense)
- Sipsas v Vaz, 50 AD3d 878 (2008) (abuse of process context)
- Ellison v City of New Rochelle, 62 AD3d 830 (2009) (§1983 pleading against municipality; policy/custom)