Pandolfo v. Brodell
Celeste Pandolfo v. Irwin Brodell
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The allegation in the complaint that appellant had made a sworn accusation against respondent before a Judge of the District Court of Nassau County, who thereupon issued a warrant for her arrest, did not constitute an admission that there existed probable cause on appellant’s part for belief that respondent was guilty of the charge made against her, so as to require the allegation of further facts sufficient to overcome *854 the effect o£ such an admission. (C£. Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley B. B. Go., 249 N. Y. 296, 300 ; Graham v. Buffalo Gen. Laundries Gorp., 261 N. Y. 165, 168 ; Ohernow V. Feldman, 251 App. Div. 329 .) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.