Majority
Plaintiffs motion, based on his testimony given at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, was properly denied because he failed to make a prima facie showing that the defense of probable cause pleaded by defendants in their answer “has no merit” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Davis v City of New York, 100 AD3d 822 [2d Dept 2012]). Although the fact that the arrest was made without a warrant raises a presumption of a lack of probable cause (see Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451 , 458 [1975], cert denied 423 US 929 [1975]), plaintiff admitted in his testimony that, prior to being stopped and arrested by defendant police officer, he had made an illegal turn, thus presenting a factual issue as to whether the officer had probable cause to believe an offense had been committed (see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417 , 423 [1985]). Since “[s]ummary judgment should be denied where there is any doubt, at least any significant doubt, whether there is a material, triable issue of fact” (Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307 , 311 [1972]), the court properly denied plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice to renew following discovery, including depositions of the officers involved in the arrest.
Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
Cases cited
- Davis v. City of New York 100 AD3d 822 p. 444
- Broughton v. State 37 NY2d 451 at 458 p. 444
- People v. Bigelow 66 NY2d 417 at 423 p. 444
- Phillips v. Joseph Kantor & Co. 31 NY2d 307 at 311 p. 444