arrest and an affirmative defense in New York

2026"The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim" of false arrest ( Martinez , 97 NY2d at 85 ; see Broughton , 37 NY2d at 458 ; Taylor v City of Buffalo , 229 AD3d 1125 , 1127 [4th Dept 2024]; Hernandez v Denny ' s Corp. , 177 AD3d 1372 , 1374 [4th Dept 2019]). "[A] conviction [that] survives appeal [is] conclusive evidence of probable cause" ( Broughton , 37 NY2d at 458 ).

2025Though "[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the [false imprisonment cause of action]" ( Martinez v City of Schenectady , 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001]), the issue of probable cause is "generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury, and should 'be decided by the court only where there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn surrounding the arrest' " ( Taylor v City of Buffalo , 229 AD3d 1125, 1127 [4th Dept 2024]).

2026"The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim" of false arrest ( Martinez , 97 NY2d at 85 ; see Broughton , 37 NY2d at 458 ; Taylor v City of Buffalo , 229 AD3d 1125 , 1127 [4th Dept 2024]; Hernandez v Denny ' s Corp. , 177 AD3d 1372 , 1374 [4th Dept 2019]). "[A] conviction [that] survives appeal [is] conclusive evidence of probable cause" ( Broughton , 37 NY2d at 458 ).

2026"The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim" of false arrest ( Martinez , 97 NY2d at 85 ; see Broughton , 37 NY2d at 458 ; Taylor v City of Buffalo , 229 AD3d 1125 , 1127 [4th Dept 2024]; Hernandez v Denny ' s Corp. , 177 AD3d 1372 , 1374 [4th Dept 2019]). "[A] conviction [that] survives appeal [is] conclusive evidence of probable cause" ( Broughton , 37 NY2d at 458 ).

2025The "existence of probable cause, however, serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest" ( Williams v City of New York , 114 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2014]; see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , — AD3d &mdash, 2024 NY Slip Op 06179, *2 [2d Dept 2024]), as an arrest is privileged if it stems from a lawful arrest supported by probable cause ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016]).

2025The "existence of probable cause, however, serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest" ( Williams v City of New York , 114 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2014]; see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , — AD3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op 06179, *2 [2d Dept 2024]), as an arrest is privileged if it stems from a lawful arrest supported by probable cause ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016]).

2016"Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed" ( People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see also Colon v City of New York , 60 NY2d 78, 82 [1983]).

2016“Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see also Colon v City of New York, 60 NY2d 78, 82 [1983]).

2015Where, as here, an arrest is made without a warrant, “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim” (Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001], citing Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d at 458 [2001]; accord Williams v City of New York, 114 AD3d at 853 ; see Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18, 23 [1974]; Okunubi v City of New York, 109 AD3d 888, 890 [2013]).

2014“The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d at 458 ; Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18, 23 [1974]).

2025Here, the respective misdemeanor complaints submitted by Plaintiffs themselves contain statements by the arresting officers regarding their observations of Plaintiffs' operation of their vehicles while showing signs of intoxication that are sufficient to demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest them for VTL § 1192(3) ( see Matter of Crowder v Fiala , 175 AD3d 1408 , 1409 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Spencer , 289 AD2d 877, 879 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 655 [2002]; see also People v Fiumara , 116 AD3d 421, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). [FN8] In the absence o

2025Here, the respective misdemeanor complaints submitted by Plaintiffs themselves contain statements by the arresting officers regarding their observations of Plaintiffs' operation of their vehicles while showing signs of intoxication that are sufficient to demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest them for VTL § 1192(3) ( see Matter of Crowder v Fiala , 175 AD3d 1408 , 1409 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Spencer , 289 AD2d 877, 879 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 655 [2002]; see also People v Fiumara , 116 AD3d 421, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). [FN8] In the absence o

2025The "existence of probable cause, however, serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest" ( Williams v City of New York , 114 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2014]; see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , — AD3d &mdash, 2024 NY Slip Op 06179, *2 [2d Dept 2024]), as an arrest is privileged if it stems from a lawful arrest supported by probable cause ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016]).

2025The "existence of probable cause, however, serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest" ( Williams v City of New York , 114 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2014]; see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , — AD3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op 06179, *2 [2d Dept 2024]), as an arrest is privileged if it stems from a lawful arrest supported by probable cause ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016]).

2025The "existence of probable cause, however, serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest" ( Williams v City of New York , 114 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2014]; see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , — AD3d &mdash, 2024 NY Slip Op 06179, *2 [2d Dept 2024]), as an arrest is privileged if it stems from a lawful arrest supported by probable cause ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016]).

2025The "existence of probable cause, however, serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest" ( Williams v City of New York , 114 AD3d 852, 853 [2d Dept 2014]; see Ballinger v City of Mount Vernon , — AD3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op 06179, *2 [2d Dept 2024]), as an arrest is privileged if it stems from a lawful arrest supported by probable cause ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 759 [2016]).

2025Here, the respective misdemeanor complaints submitted by Plaintiffs themselves contain statements by the arresting officers regarding their observations of Plaintiffs' operation of their vehicles while showing signs of intoxication that are sufficient to demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest them for VTL § 1192(3) ( see Matter of Crowder v Fiala , 175 AD3d 1408 , 1409 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Spencer , 289 AD2d 877, 879 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 655 [2002]; see also People v Fiumara , 116 AD3d 421, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). [FN8] In the absence o

2025Here, the respective misdemeanor complaints submitted by Plaintiffs themselves contain statements by the arresting officers regarding their observations of Plaintiffs' operation of their vehicles while showing signs of intoxication that are sufficient to demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest them for VTL § 1192(3) ( see Matter of Crowder v Fiala , 175 AD3d 1408 , 1409 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Spencer , 289 AD2d 877, 879 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 655 [2002]; see also People v Fiumara , 116 AD3d 421, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). [FN8] In the absence o

2025Here, the respective misdemeanor complaints submitted by Plaintiffs themselves contain statements by the arresting officers regarding their observations of Plaintiffs' operation of their vehicles while showing signs of intoxication that are sufficient to demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest them for VTL § 1192(3) ( see Matter of Crowder v Fiala , 175 AD3d 1408 , 1409 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Spencer , 289 AD2d 877, 879 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 655 [2002]; see also People v Fiumara , 116 AD3d 421, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). [FN8] In the absence o

2025Here, the respective misdemeanor complaints submitted by Plaintiffs themselves contain statements by the arresting officers regarding their observations of Plaintiffs' operation of their vehicles while showing signs of intoxication that are sufficient to demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest them for VTL § 1192(3) ( see Matter of Crowder v Fiala , 175 AD3d 1408 , 1409 [2d Dept 2019]; People v Spencer , 289 AD2d 877, 879 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 655 [2002]; see also People v Fiumara , 116 AD3d 421, 421 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]). [FN8] In the absence o

2016"Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed" ( People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see also Colon v City of New York , 60 NY2d 78, 82 [1983]).

2016“Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see also Colon v City of New York, 60 NY2d 78, 82 [1983]).

2014“The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d at 458 ; Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18, 23 [1974]).

2014“The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim of false imprisonment or false arrest” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d at 458 ; Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18, 23 [1974]).

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the City of New York demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs false imprisonment claim. “ ‘Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest’ ” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 , quoting People v Bero, 139 AD2d 581, 584 [1988]; see Minott v City of New York, 203 AD2d 265, 267 [1994]; Shapiro v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 358 [1994]).

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the City of New York demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs false imprisonment claim. “ ‘Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest’ ” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 , quoting People v Bero, 139 AD2d 581, 584 [1988]; see Minott v City of New York, 203 AD2d 265, 267 [1994]; Shapiro v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 358 [1994]).

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the City of New York demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs false imprisonment claim. “ ‘Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest’ ” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 , quoting People v Bero, 139 AD2d 581, 584 [1988]; see Minott v City of New York, 203 AD2d 265, 267 [1994]; Shapiro v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 358 [1994]).

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the City of New York demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs false imprisonment claim. “ ‘Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest’ ” (Rivera v County of Nassau, 83 AD3d at 1033 , quoting People v Bero, 139 AD2d 581, 584 [1988]; see Minott v City of New York, 203 AD2d 265, 267 [1994]; Shapiro v County of Nassau, 202 AD2d 358 [1994]).

2010An arrest made extrajudicially— that is, without a warrant—is presumptively unlawful, but “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim” (Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d at 85 , citing Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d at 458 ; see Downs v Town of Guilderland, 70 AD3d 1228, 1232 [2010]; Wallace v City of Albany, 283 AD2d 872, 873 [2001]; Saunders v County of Washington, 255 AD2d 788, 789 [1998]).

2010Where, as here, an arrest is made without a warrant, it is presumed that the arrest was unlawful and defendant is required to establish the affirmative defense of probable cause (see Lynn v State of New York, 33 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]; Wallace v City of Albany, 283 AD2d 872, 873 [2001]).

2014Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]; Lynn v State of New York, 33 AD3d 673 [2006]). “‘The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim’ ” (Lynn v State of New York, 33 AD3d at 674 , quoting Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001]).

2014Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]; Lynn v State of New York, 33 AD3d 673 [2006]). “‘The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim’ ” (Lynn v State of New York, 33 AD3d at 674 , quoting Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001]).

2025While in general, a guilty plea establishes probable cause for arrest on the underlying conduct and any other charges satisfied by the plea ( see Calastri v Overlock , 125 AD3d 554, 554 [1st Dept 2015]), here, defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of the nonparty NFTA officer who initially stopped plaintiff's car, in which he testified that the police lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff at relevant points of the encounter.

2025While in general, a guilty plea establishes probable cause for arrest on the underlying conduct and any other charges satisfied by the plea ( see Calastri v Overlock , 125 AD3d 554, 554 [1st Dept 2015]), here, defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of the nonparty NFTA officer who initially stopped plaintiff's car, in which he testified that the police lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff at relevant points of the encounter.

2021Here, we conclude that, although plaintiff was arrested without a warrant, he was not entitled to summary judgment because defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether there was probable cause to support the arrest ( see Hernandez v Denny's Corp. , 177 AD3d 1372 , 1374 [4th Dept 2019]; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

2019Inasmuch as there is a triable issue of fact whether there was probable cause for the arrest, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on liability with respect to the false arrest cause of action ( see Gisondi , 72 NY2d at 283 ; Fortunato , 63 AD3d at 880-881 ; Iorio v City of New York , 19 AD3d 452, 453 [2d Dept 2005]).

2016"Where, as here, an arrest is made without a warrant, [t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim'" ( Nolasco v City of New York , 131 AD3d 683, 684 [2d Dept 2015], quoting Martinez v City of Schenectady , 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001]).

2016“Where, as here, an arrest is made without a warrant, ‘[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim’ ” (Nolasco v City of New York, 131 AD3d 683, 684 [2d Dept 2015], quoting Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001]).

2015Where, as here, an arrest is made without a warrant, “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim” (Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 85 [2001], citing Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d at 458 [2001]; accord Williams v City of New York, 114 AD3d at 853 ; see Smith v County of Nassau, 34 NY2d 18, 23 [1974]; Okunubi v City of New York, 109 AD3d 888, 890 [2013]).

2011In order to hold a civilian defendant liable for false arrest, the plaintiff must establish that that defendant did not merely report a crime to the police or participate in the prosecution, but actively importuned the police to make an arrest without “reasonable cause [to believe] in the plaintiffs culpability” (DeFilippo v County of Nassau, 183 AD2d 695, 696-697 [1992]; see Grinnell v Weston, 95 App Div 454, 459 [1904]; cf. Brown v Nassau County, 306 AD2d 303 [2003]).

2011In order to hold a civilian defendant liable for false arrest, the plaintiff must establish that that defendant did not merely report a crime to the police or participate in the prosecution, but actively importuned the police to make an arrest without “reasonable cause [to believe] in the plaintiffs culpability” (DeFilippo v County of Nassau, 183 AD2d 695, 696-697 [1992]; see Grinnell v Weston, 95 App Div 454, 459 [1904]; cf. Brown v Nassau County, 306 AD2d 303 [2003]).