LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

JO-ANN CANTALINO v JACQUELINE DANNER Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: JO-ANN CANTALINO, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0086, Dismissing, Charges, Innocence, Termination, Prosecution, Justice, Inconsistent, Smith-hunter, Favorable Termination, Malicious Prosecution, Police, Supreme Court, Complaint, Appellate, York, Reasons, Husband, Proceeding, Intent, Divorce, Hammer, Ward, Mercy, Process Server, Door, Perez, Ny2d , ContentID: 120248700

Case Documents
1 2001-06-28 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120610
5 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 5 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
PLAINTIFF
CHARGES
INNOCENCE
TERMINATION
PROSECUTION
JUSTICE
INCONSISTENT
SMITH-HUNTER
FAVORABLE TERMINATION
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
POLICE
DEFENDANT
SUPREME COURT
COMPLAINT
APPELLATE
YORK
REASONS
HUSBAND
PROCEEDING
INTENT
DIVORCE
HAMMER
WARD
MERCY
PROCESS SERVER
DOOR
PEREZ
NY2D


   2 No. 98
   Jo-Ann Cantalino,
   Appellant,
   v.
   Jacqueline Danner,
   Respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 86

   June 28, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Anthony J. Genovesi, Jr., for appellant.
   John W. Burns, for respondent.
   City of New York, amicus curiæ.
     _________________________________________________________________

   KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:

   Is a dismissal in the interest of justice a "favorable termination"
   for purposes of a malicious prosecution action? Under the
   circumstances here, we conclude that it is, since the court's reasons
   for dismissing the criminal charges were not inconsistent with the
   innocence of the accused.

   This case arises out of the bitterly contested divorce of plaintiff
   from her husband. The husband, a Lieutenant in the New York City
   Police Department, was living with defendant -- his girlfriend, who
   was also a police officer. While the divorce action was pending in
   Kings County Supreme Court, the husband purported to obtain a divorce
   in the Dominican Republic and marry defendant. He then repeatedly
   failed to comply with orders entered in the Kings County divorce
   proceeding.

   Plaintiff moved to have her husband held in contempt, and Supreme
   Court ordered that he be personally served. One service attempt was
   unsuccessful when defendant allegedly grabbed the papers from the
   process server. On another occasion, the officers at the husband's
   precinct apparently thwarted a service attempt by informing the
   process server that he was not at work and sending the process server
   to a false location. On yet a third occasion, the Police Department
   allegedly refused to provide a police escort so that plaintiff could
   serve her husband at his home in Staten Island.
SNIPPETS:
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Under the circumstances here, we conclude that it is, since the court's reasons for
  • The husband, a Lieutenant in the New York City Police Department, was living with defendant
  • While the divorce action was pending in Kings County Supreme Court, the husband purported to
  • He then repeatedly failed to comply with orders entered in the Kings County divorce
  • Plaintiff moved to have her husband held in contempt, and Supreme Court ordered that he be
  • the officers at the husband's precinct apparently thwarted a service attempt by informing the
  • Supreme Court ordered that service be made on the husband by "nailing to the door" of his
  • Pursuant to that order, plaintiff, accompanied by her process server, Rosalie Perez, went to
  • By a Criminal Court complaint, plaintiff was charged with assault in the third degree,
  • In a lengthy opinion, Criminal Court dismissed the complaint in the interest of justice,
  • Specifically, the court held that because plaintiff was complying with Supreme Court's order
  • In addition, the court noted that dismissing the complaint "would have a positive effect on
  • Plaintiff then brought the present malicious prosecution action against defendant.Defendant
  • The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that a dismissal in the
  • In Smith-Hunter, this Court held that any termination of a criminal prosecution, such that
  • The same rule applies if charges are dismissed out of mercy, since mercy presupposes the
  •    |