Legal Opinion

Singer v. Krul

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

Decided December 22, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Micallef v. Miehle Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Smith-Hunter v. HarveyNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Straub v. YalamanchiliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  4. Packard v. State Farm General InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. FORBA HOLDINGS, LLC N/K/A CHURCH ST, VARANO, KELLY vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  2. In re Ramsey H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  3. In re Ramsey H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API