Legal Opinion

Babor v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 18, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The case was submitted to the jury upon the theory of malicious prosecution. In such an action, as charged by the court, the burden of proving lack of probable cause is upon the plaintiff. We are of opinion that he failed to sustain such burden. The material facts not being in dispute, the existence of probable cause was a question of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury. (Anderson v. How, 116 N. Y. 336; Rawson v. Leggett, 184 id. 504; Day v. Levine, 181 App. Div. 261; affd., 228 N. Y. 588; Dachs v. DeLite Realty Co., 210 App. Div. 230.) Upon such undisputed facts, the existence…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Anderson v. . HowNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Day v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  3. Day v. . LevineNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  4. Dachs v. DeLite Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Caminito v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Sherkate Sahami Khass Rapol v. Henry R. Jahn & Son, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  3. Colaruotolo v. City of CohoesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API