Singer v. Krul
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Mercure, A.EJ.
The decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) is committed to the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion (see Micallef v Miehle Co., Div. of Miehle-Goss Dexter, 39 NY2d 376, 381 [1976]; Straub v Yalamanchili, 58 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009]; Packard v State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 821, 822 [2000]). Here, in order to prevail upon his malicious prosecution claim, plaintiff was required to prove — among other things — “the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding” (Smith-Hunter v Harvey,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Micallef v. Miehle Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Smith-Hunter v. HarveyNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- Straub v. YalamanchiliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Packard v. State Farm General InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
3Cited by3 opinions
- FORBA HOLDINGS, LLC N/K/A CHURCH ST, VARANO, KELLY vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- In re Ramsey H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- In re Ramsey H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012