Oakley v. City of Rochester
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Johnson v. Target Stores, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
- Rodriguez v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
- Coyle v. Coyle (District Court, E.D. New York 2005)
- L.B. v. Town of Chester (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
- Roe v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
- Dukes v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (2d Cir. 1992)
- Hygh v. Jacobs (2d Cir. 1992)
- Cox v. County of Suffolk (District Court, E.D. New York 1991)
- Dirienzo v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1988)
- Benjamin v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 1982)
- Johnson v. Target Stores, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
- Kendrick v. Rochester Gen. Hosp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Kinge v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Putnam v. County of Steuben (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Rivera v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Hicks v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Collazo v. Cooper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Janendo v. Town of New Paltz Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Parkin v. Cornell University, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Brown v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Lenehan v. Familo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Feinberg v. Saks & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff’s argument that there was consistency between the jury’s finding of probable cause on the false arrest cause of action and its finding that plaintiff had established malicious prosecution by defendant is at best speculative and ignores the Trial Judge’s explicit instructions to the jury concerning the events involved in the determination whether there was probable cause. We cannot say, therefore, that the Trial Judge abused his discretion in directing entry of judgment for defendant city on the malicious prosecution cause of action (see CPLR 4111, subd [c]; Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518, n 5; Kennard v Welded Tank & Constr. Co., 25 NY2d 324, 330).
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.