green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Moorhouse v. Standard
To establish the element of initiation of a criminal proceeding, it typically must be shown that the defendant did something “more than merely report a crime to the police and cooperate in its prosecution” (Maskantz v Hayes, 39 AD3d 211, 213 [1st Dept 2007]; see Present v Avon Prods., 253 AD2d 183, 189 [1st Dept 1999] [one who merely discloses to a prosecutor all material information within her knowledge is not deemed to have initiated the proceeding], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1032 [1999]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moorhouse v. Standard, N.Y.
To establish the element of initiation of a criminal proceeding, it typically must be shown that the defendant did something "more than merely report a crime to the police and cooperate in its prosecution" ( Maskantz v Hayes , 39 AD3d 211, 213 [1st Dept 2007]; see Present v Avon Prods. , 253 AD2d 183, 189 [1st Dept 1999] [one who merely discloses to a prosecutor all material information within her knowledge is not deemed to have initiated the proceeding], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1032 [1999]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moorhouse v. Standard
To establish the element of initiation of a criminal proceeding, it typically must be shown that the defendant did something “more than merely report a crime to the police and cooperate in its prosecution” (Maskantz v Hayes, 39 AD3d 211, 213 [1st Dept 2007]; see Present v Avon Prods., 253 AD2d 183, 189 [1st Dept 1999] [one who merely discloses to a prosecutor all material information within her knowledge is not deemed to have initiated the proceeding], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1032 [1999]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richards v. Security Resources
Plaintiff's defamation claim fails because plaintiff fails to allege one allegedly defamatory statement was published to a third-party, an essential element of a defamation claim ( Stepanov v Dow Jones & Co., Inc. , 120 AD3d 28 , 34 [1st Dept 2014]), and the second alleged defamatory statement between defendants' employees regarding his conduct at work is protected by a qualified privilege ( see Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines , 169 AD2d 434, 438 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 854 [1991]; see also Present v Avon Prods.. , 253 AD2d 183, 187-188 [1st Dept 1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1032…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
However, it is well settled that “[t]he mere reporting of a crime to police and giving testimony are insufficient; it must be shown that defendant played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act.” (Viza v Town of Greece, 94 AD2d 965, 966 ; see also, Present v Avon Prods., 253 AD2d 183, 189 , Iv dismissed 93 NY2d 1032 ; DeFilippo v County of Nassau, 183 AD2d 695, 696 .) There is no evidence in this case that Sankar did anything other than provide the police with information and sign the criminal complaint at the request…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Steven Present, Appellant,
v.
Avon Products, Inc., Et Al., Respondents, Et Al., Defendants. (And Another Action.)
v.
Avon Products, Inc., Et Al., Respondents, Et Al., Defendants. (And Another Action.)
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 9, 1999.
719 N.E.2d 914
Published
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division where the appeal to the Appellate Division was from a[*1033] judgment of order entered on an appeal from another court (see, NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]).