Oakley v. City of Rochester
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff’s argument that there was consistency between the jury’s finding of probable cause on the false arrest cause of action and its finding that plaintiff had established malicious prosecution by defendant is at best speculative and ignores the Trial Judge’s explicit instructions to the jury concerning the events involved in the determination whether there was probable cause. We cannot say, therefore, that the Trial Judge abused his discretion in directing entry of judgment for defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Kennard v. Welded Tank & Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1969
3Cited by24 opinions
- Hygh v. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Dukes v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Johnson v. Target Stores, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Rivera v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Dirienzo v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1988
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.