Russo v. State of New York, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Russo v. State of New York, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Van v. Grand Casinos of Miss., Inc. (miss, 1998-12-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Van v. Grand Casinos of Miss., Inc.
Miss. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1019 (2nd Cir.1982), modified on reh'g, 721 F.2d 410 (2nd Cir.1983)(applying New York law)(termination must be on merits or such as to imply lack of reasonable grounds for prosecution); Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 194-95 (2nd Cir.1980)(termination must indicate innocence of defendant), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920 , 101 S.Ct. 1368 , 67 L.Ed.2d 347 (1981). [2] Although Alabama has not addressed how dismissal on speedy trial grounds affects a malicious prosecution action, the Court of Civil Appeals has held when a trial is terminated …
cited Cited "see" Hansel v. Sheridan
N.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (citing Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1020 (2d Cir.1982), modified, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1983)).
discussed Cited "see" Cong Vo Van v. Grand Casinos of Mississippi, Inc.
Miss. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014 , 1019 (2nd Cir. 1982), modified on reh'g, 721 F.2d 410 (2nd Cir. 1983)(applying New York law)(termination must be on merits or such as to imply lack of reasonable grounds for prosecution); Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 194-95 (2nd Cir. 1980)(termination must indicate innocence of defendant), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920 (1981). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Rhodes v. Mabus
S.D. Miss. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1019 (2nd Cir.1982), modified on reh’g, 721 F.2d 410 (2nd Cir.1983) (applying New York law) (termination must be on merits or such as to imply lack of reasonable grounds for prosecution); Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 194-95 (2nd Cir.1980) (termination must indicate innocence of defendant), cert. denied 450 U.S. 920 , 101 S.Ct. 1368 , 67 L.Ed.2d 347 (1981); Mendoza v. K-Mart, Inc., 587 F.2d 1052, 1057 (10th Cir.1978) (applying New Mexico law) (criminal prosecution must be disposed of in way which indicates innocence of accused).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Paxfire, Inc. v. Richman
2d Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Dunton v. Suffolk Cty., 729 F.2d 903 , 911 n.9 (2d Cir. 1984); see also Russo v. State of N.Y., 672 F.2d 1014, 1020 (2d Cir. 1982) (same), decision modified on reh’g on other grounds, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Paxfire, Inc. v. Richman
2d Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Dunton v. Suffolk Cty., 729 F.2d 903 , 911 n.9 (2d Cir. 1984); see also Russo v. State of N.Y., 672 F.2d 1014, 1020 (2d Cir. 1982) (same), decision modified on reh’g on other grounds, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA TECHNOLOGY, LLC
S.D.N.Y. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
See von Bulow v. von Bulow, 657 F.Supp. 1134, 1140 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Rosemont Enters., Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 261 F.Supp. 691 , 695 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.1966); see also Russo v. New York, 672, F.2d 1014, 1018 (2d Cir.1982), on reh’g, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1983); Brady v. Penn Cent.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Altman v. Bedford Central School District
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1023 (2d Cir.1982) (“The teachings of the Supreme Court ... foreclose [an] expan sive interpretation of section 1988” that would allow “attorney’s fees under section 1988 to a party who does not succeed on his civil rights claim .... ”), modified on other grounds, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Altman v. Bedford Central School District
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1023 (2d Cir. 1982) ("The teachings of the Supreme Court... foreclose [an] expansive interpretation of section 1988" that would allow "attorney's fees under section 1988 to a party who does not succeed on his civil rights claim...."), modified on other grounds, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Murphy v. Lynn
2d Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1020 (2d Cir.1982) (issue of favorable termination is one for judge if defendant presents no conflicting evidence as to the reason for the dismissal), modified on other grounds, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1983); Lenehan v. Familo, 79 A.D.2d at 76 , 436 N.Y.S.2d at 475 (issue is one of law in absence of factual dispute surrounding the reasons for the dismissal); Restatement §§ 673(l)(b) and (2)(c); id. § 673 comment e (“upon the issue[] of favorable termination ..., the jury has only the function of finding the circumstances under which the d…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Murphy v. Lynn
2d Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1020 (2d Cir.1982) (issue of favorable termination is one for judge if defendant presents no conflicting evidence as to the reason for the dismissal), modified on other grounds, 721 F.2d 410 (2d Cir.1983); Lenehan v. Familo, 79 A.D.2d at 76 , 436 N.Y.S.2d at 475 (issue is one of law in absence of factual dispute surrounding the reasons for the dismissal); Restatement §§ 673(1)(b) and (2)(c); id. § 673 comment e ("upon the issue[ ] of favorable termination ..., the jury has only the function of finding the circumstances under which the de…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gilmore v. Gold
E.D.N.Y · 1986 · signal: compare · confidence medium
In any event, where a plaintiff can establish that his conviction was obtained by fraud, perjury, conspiracy, or other undue means (e.g., the misrepresentation, falsification or withholding of material evidence), a cause of action for malicious prosecution may nevertheless be sustained.” Whitmore v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 638 , 436 N.Y.S.2d 323, 325 (2d Dept.1981) (citations omitted); compare Williams v. City of New York, 508 F.2d 356, 359-60 (2d Cir.1974) (discussion and result consistent with Whitmore) with Conway, supra, Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1019 (2d Cir.1982), …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony Russo and Joann Russo, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Infant Children Rose Russo and Antonina Russo
v.
State of New York, the State of New York Police Department, Lawrence Cichocki, Delbert George, Orange Motel Corporation, Tina Horton, Howard Johnsons Company and Big v Supermarkets, Inc., Lawrence Cichocki
309.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 4, 1983.
721 F.2d 410
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

721 F.2d 410

Anthony RUSSO and Joann Russo, on behalf of themselves and
their infant children Rose Russo and Antonina
Russo, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, the State of New York Police Department,
Lawrence Cichocki, Delbert George, Orange Motel
Corporation, Tina Horton, Howard
Johnsons Company and Big V
Supermarkets, Inc., Defendants,
Lawrence Cichocki, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 161, 309, Dockets 81-7244, 81-7442.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Decided Feb. 9, 1982.
Opinion Filed Nov. 4, 1983.

Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and TIMBERS and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

1

In Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir.1982), we reversed the judgment entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 515 F.Supp. 470, awarding plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages in a malicious prosecution action because we held that plaintiff Anthony Russo had not proved that the underlying criminal proceedings were terminated in his favor. We remanded for a new trial. Subsequently, Russo applied to this Court for permission to file a late petition for rehearing claiming that our mandate should be withdrawn and the judgment of the district court awarding plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages reinstated. After asking for and receiving a response from the appellant, Cichocki, we allowed the late filing and now recall the mandate and grant the petition for rehearing.

2

To bolster his position that the favorable termination question had been incorrectly decided by this Court, Russo, with our permission, filed an appendix including material which was not part of the original record on appeal. We find one question raised by this new material to be troublesome, namely, whether the actions of Cichocki's trial counsel amounted to a concession that the prior termination was favorable. Although we do not believe that a reversal of our prior decision is warranted, we do modify that decision as follows: we reverse and vacate both judgments below and remand for a new trial before a different judge on the issue of favorable termination only. If plaintiff should be successful at the retrial on this limited issue, the judgments below should be reinstated; if plaintiff should be unsuccessful at the retrial, judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant. The parties shall bear their own costs.