Cite as: Azova v. Starbucks Corp., 570034/12, NYLJ 1202579910119, at *1 (App. Tm., 1st, Decided August 30, 2012)

Before: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.

Decided: August 30, 2012

 

*1

 

Defendant, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), dated October 7, 2011, which granted plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM.

Order (Andrea Masley, J.), dated October 7, 2011, reversed, with $10 costs, plaintiffs' motion denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims for false arrest and malicious

 

*2

 

prosecution should have been granted. The evidence showed only that defendant's employees furnished information and sought assistance from the police when plaintiffs refused to leave the defendant's retail establishment at closing time, and that the arresting officers, based upon their own interactions with and observations of the plaintiffs, determined that their arrests were warranted (see Williams v. Amin, 52 AD3d 823, 824 [2008]; Paisley v. Coin Device Corp., 5 AD3d 748, 749-750 [2004]; Grant v. Barnes & Noble, 284 AD2d 238, 239 [2001]). "[A] civilian complainant, by merely seeking police assistance or furnishing information to law enforcement authorities who are then free to exercise their own judgment as to whether an arrest should be made and criminal charges filed, will not be held liable for false arrest or malicious prosecution" (see Du Chateau v. Metro- North Commuter R.R. Co., 253 AD2d 128, 131 [1999]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs failed to either raise a triable issue of fact or show that facts essential to justify opposition may exist (see CPLR 3212[f]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.