Finsilver v. Still
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover $250,000 damages for malicious prosecution by the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court at Special Term denied the motion and said: “ The doctrine laid down in Graham v. Buffalo General Laundries Corporation (261 N. Y. 165) with which this court necessarily can have no quarrel does not invalidate the complaint herein, but rather supports it. Unequivocally the Court of Appeals holds in the authority cited that want of probable cause is sufficiently…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hopkinson v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- City of Boston v. Treasurer & Receiver GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Graham v. Buffalo General Laundries Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Knapp v. . the City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. S. L. Agoos Tanning Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hornstein v. WolfAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Berger v. American National Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Goldner-Siegel Corp. v. Kraemer Hosiery Co.New York Supreme Court · 1934
- Brandt v. CohnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Rubin v. Houbigant, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.