Falsely Charged in NYC? How to Stop Malicious Prosecution
If you were prosecuted in New York City without probable cause and the case ended in your favor, you may have a civil claim. To win, you generally must prove that the defendant initiated or continued a criminal case against you, it ended favorably, there was no probable cause, and the case was pursued with malice. Standards differ between New York common law and federal Section 1983 claims, and immunities can be decisive. Have questions? Contact us.
Being falsely accused can lead to arrest, court dates, and serious harm to your reputation, job, and mental health. New York law, and in some situations federal law, provide remedies for malicious prosecution when charges were pursued without proper basis.
What Is Malicious Prosecution in New York?
New York courts have long recognized four elements for malicious prosecution: (1) the defendant commenced or continued a criminal proceeding against you; (2) the proceeding terminated in your favor; (3) a lack of probable cause; and (4) malice. See, for example, Broughton v. State of New York and De Lourdes Torres v. Jones.
Malicious Prosecution vs. False Arrest
False arrest (false imprisonment) addresses the initial detention without legal process. Malicious prosecution addresses harm after legal process begins—such as after an arraignment or indictment—where the case is continued without probable cause and with malice. It is common to see both claims, but they rest on distinct facts and defenses. See Broughton.
What Counts as a Favorable Termination?
Favorable termination means the criminal case ended in a way that permits you to challenge the prosecution as wrongful.
- Federal Section 1983 claims: The U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not show an affirmative indication of innocence; it is enough that the prosecution ended without a conviction. See Thompson v. Clark.
- New York common-law claims: The termination must not be inconsistent with innocence. Dismissals in the interest of justice can qualify when circumstances indicate innocence. See Cantalino v. Danner. By contrast, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) typically does not qualify for common-law malicious prosecution. See Hollender v. Trump Village Coop.
Outcomes like a conviction—even if later vacated for reasons unrelated to innocence—generally will not qualify. Application of these standards is fact-specific.
Probable Cause and Malice
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe you committed a crime. If probable cause existed, the claim typically fails. A grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause that can be rebutted by evidence of fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or other misconduct. See Colon v. City of New York; see also Rothstein v. Carriere.
Malice can be shown directly (e.g., an improper purpose) or inferred from a lack of probable cause combined with other evidence, including fabrication of evidence or materially false statements.
Who Can Be Liable?
- Police officers and complaining witnesses: Officers and private complainants who knowingly furnish false information can be liable, subject to defenses like qualified immunity for officers.
- Prosecutors: Prosecutors generally have absolute immunity for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase, such as advocacy in court, but may have only qualified immunity for investigative or administrative acts. See LII overview and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons.
- Municipalities (Section 1983): A city is not liable under § 1983 for employees’ actions on a respondeat superior theory; you must show a policy or custom caused the violation. See Monell v. Department of Social Services.
Damages You May Recover
Potential damages include lost wages, reputational harm, emotional distress, and out-of-pocket losses. Reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred defending the criminal case are commonly recoverable as damages; fees for litigating the civil suit are generally not recoverable absent a statute. Punitive damages may be available against individual wrongdoers, but not against municipalities under § 1983. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts.
Notice and Timing Considerations
- Notice of claim (state-law claims against NYC and other public entities): You typically must serve a notice of claim within 90 days of accrual. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e.
- State-law limitations period: Many tort claims against municipalities must be commenced within one year and 90 days of accrual. See N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-i. Malicious prosecution generally accrues upon favorable termination.
- Section 1983 limitations period: Federal § 1983 claims in New York generally follow a three-year limitations period borrowed from CPLR § 214. Accrual is typically at favorable termination for malicious prosecution–type claims.
Deadlines are strict and exceptions are narrow. Consult counsel promptly to preserve your rights.
How Section 1983 Fits In
Some malicious prosecution claims can be brought in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Fourth Amendment violations. You must show state action (e.g., police involvement). For municipal liability, you must connect the violation to a municipal policy or custom under Monell. The U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. Clark clarified the favorable-termination rule for § 1983 claims.
Practical Tips
- Write down a timeline of events as soon as possible while details are fresh.
- Request and keep copies of all court records and dismissal paperwork.
- Back up digital evidence (texts, photos, videos) to multiple locations.
- Do not contact the complaining witness; let your attorney handle communications.
Key Defenses You Should Expect
- Probable cause: A warrant, indictment, or grand jury action can create presumptions of probable cause that you must overcome with proof of fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or other misconduct. See Colon.
- Immunities: Absolute immunity for prosecutors’ advocacy functions (see LII overview), and qualified immunity for officers when the law was not clearly established.
- Favorable termination challenges: The defense may argue your case did not end in a way that permits a malicious prosecution claim under the applicable standard.
What to Do If You Were Falsely Charged in NYC
- Preserve all documents: charging papers, desk appearance tickets, orders of protection, discovery, and dismissal orders.
- Identify witnesses and evidence: texts, emails, video, location data, and names of officers and complainants.
- Be cautious about statements: avoid giving statements to insurers or others without counsel.
- Act quickly: strict notice and filing deadlines may apply—consult an attorney promptly.
FAQs
Is an ACD a favorable termination in New York?
Generally no for common-law malicious prosecution, though it may satisfy the federal standard for Section 1983 because it ends without a conviction.
Can I sue the prosecutor?
Prosecutors typically have absolute immunity for advocacy functions in court, but only qualified immunity for investigative or administrative acts.
What if there was a grand jury indictment?
An indictment creates a presumption of probable cause that you must rebut with evidence such as fraud, perjury, or suppression of exculpatory facts.
When do the clocks start?
Malicious prosecution generally accrues at favorable termination. State and federal claims have different deadlines; act promptly.
How We Help
We move fast to secure records, assess whether your case ended favorably, and build the lack-of-probable-cause and malice elements. We litigate in New York state and federal courts, handle § 1983 claims, and navigate governmental immunities and municipal liability. Ready to talk? Schedule a consultation.
Sources: Broughton v. State of New York; De Lourdes Torres v. Jones; Colon v. City of New York; Rothstein v. Carriere; Thompson v. Clark; Monell v. Department of Social Services; Buckley v. Fitzsimmons; Cantalino v. Danner; Hollender v. Trump Village Coop.; City of Newport v. Fact Concerts; GML § 50-e; GML § 50-i; CPLR § 214.
Disclaimer (New York): This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and deadlines change and vary by facts; consult a New York attorney about your specific situation.