N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER General Business / ARTICLE Online Retailers and Mercantile Establishments
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Business Law § 218 (2026)

Defense of lawful detention

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 218. Defense of lawful detention. In any action for false arrest,
false imprisonment, unlawful detention, defamation of character,
assault, trespass, or invasion of civil rights, brought by any person by
reason of having been detained on or in the immediate vicinity of the
premises of (a) a retail mercantile establishment for the purpose of
investigation or questioning as to criminal possession of an
anti-security item as defined in section 170.47 of the penal law or as
to the ownership of any merchandise, or (b) a motion picture theater for
the purposes of investigation or questioning as to the unauthorized
operation of a recording device in a motion picture theater, it shall be
a defense to such action that the person was detained in a reasonable
manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such
investigation or questioning by a peace officer acting pursuant to his
special duties, police officer or by the owner of the retail mercantile
establishment or motion picture theater, his authorized employee or
agent, and that such officer, owner, employee or agent had reasonable
grounds to believe that the person so detained was guilty of criminal
possession of an anti-security item as defined in section 170.47 of the
penal law or was committing or attempting to commit larceny on such
premises of such merchandise or was engaged in the unauthorized
operation of a recording device in a motion picture theater. As used in
this section, "reasonable grounds" shall include, but not be limited to,
knowledge that a person (i) has concealed possession of unpurchased
merchandise of a retail mercantile establishment, or (ii) has possession
of an item designed for the purpose of overcoming detection of security
markings attachments placed on merchandise offered for sale at such an
establishment, or (iii) has possession of a recording device in a
theater in which a motion picture is being exhibited and a "reasonable
time" shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to
make a statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time
necessary to examine employees and records of the mercantile
establishment relative to the ownership of the merchandise, or
possession of such an item or device. Such detention at such vicinity
shall not authorize the taking of such person's fingerprints at such
vicinity unless the taking of fingerprints is otherwise authorized by
section 160.10 of the criminal procedure law and are taken by the
arresting or other appropriate police officer or agency described
therein in accordance with section 140.20 or 140.27 of such law.
Whenever fingerprints are taken, the requirements of article one hundred
sixty of the criminal procedure law shall apply as if fully set forth
herein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., 53 Misc. 3d 622 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., 53 Misc. 3d 622 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). · cites it 17× “Macy’s, a mercantile establishment, is empowered under General Business Law § 218 and General Obligations Law § 11-105 to use these statutes as a shield, and as a form of protection of its establishment and merchandise, against shoplifting.”
Luppo v. Waldbaum, Inc., 131 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 2× “The defendants’ answer contained several affirmative defenses including, inter alia, the existence of probable cause, and justification under General Business Law § 218. After joinder of issue and the rendering of the arbitrator’s award, the defendants moved in July 1985 for an…”
Nelson v. Times Square Stores Corp., 110 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “As to the detective’s employer, defendant Times Square Stores, however, it awarded $250 compensatory damages plus $5,000 punitive damages on the false imprisonment cause of action and $5,000 compensatory damages and $25,000 punitive damages on the malicious prosecution cause of…”
Restrepo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and violation of civil rights based upon the defense afforded to…”
Est. of Iodice v. Gimbels, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1054 (E.D.N.Y 1976). “That statute confers upon a merchant and its employees sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and the like by a person who was detained for purpose of investigation as to ownership of merchandise, a defense that the detention was made in a “reasonable manner” and for a…”
Johnson v. Lord & Taylor, 25 A.D.3d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “In response to Lord & Taylor’s prima facie case that the momentary detention of plaintiff, by asking her to pass through the sensor a second time, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis, i.”
Sada v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 1121 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 4× “The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion *1122 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the defense afforded to merchants under General Business Law § 218. Since the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had…”
Muza v. Niketown New York, 278 A.D.2d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “While, contrary to the view of the motion court, the defense set forth (General Business Law § 218) may be available to Niketown under the instant circumstances (see, Wolin v Abraham & Straus, 64 Mise 2d 982), there exist factual questions upon which Nike-town’s invocation of…”
Watkins v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 289 A.D.2d 73 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Given these circumstances, the non-deadly force used by the guard in apprehending a fleeing shoplifter was reasonable as a matter of law (see, General Business Law § 218; cf., Penal Law § 35.”
Conteh v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 38 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 2× “Summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims should have been granted since plaintiff failed to raise triable issues as to whether the manner and length of his detention by defendant retail merchant, on suspicion of theft of merchandise,…”
Malcolm v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 4× “The defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and violation of civil rights based upon the defense afforded to merchants…”
Hui Min Li v. City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The conflicting testimony presents issues of fact whether plaintiff was detained or remained voluntarily in the store after defendant accused her of stealing rice cakes and, if she was detained, whether the detention was conducted in a reasonable manner (see General Business Law…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.