Barrett v. Watkins
82 A.D.3d 1569 (2011) (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant can be held liable for unlawful imprisonment if they actively encourage, further, or ratify a confinement, even if they did not initiate it. However, a civilian complainant is not liable for malicious prosecution for merely providing information to law enforcement authorities who then exercise their own independent judgment to prosecute.
Facts:
- On April 25, 2005, plaintiffs drove to a remote public recreation area and found the access road blocked by an unoccupied truck when they attempted to leave.
- After plaintiffs honked their horn, Wade Ebert emerged, refused to move the truck, and telephoned defendant Steven M. Dubrovsky, who owned adjacent land.
- Dubrovsky arrived approximately 40 minutes later, told plaintiffs they did not belong there, and stated he did not care if they had to sit there all night.
- Dubrovsky then got into his vehicle with Ebert and left the area, leaving the plaintiffs confined behind the truck.
- In a separate incident on May 15, 2005, plaintiff Robert Barrett drove near a private development owned by Dubrovsky's company, Woodstone Lakes, but turned around without entering after observing a closed gate.
- Defendant Michael B. Watkins, a contractor, witnessed this and reported it to Dubrovsky and defendant David Allen.
- At Dubrovsky's request and on behalf of his companies, Allen filed a criminal trespass complaint against Barrett based on the May 15 incident and alleged prior trespasses.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs commenced an action in the New York Supreme Court, the state's trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The complaint alleged unlawful imprisonment against Steven Dubrovsky and the Woodstone Companies, and malicious prosecution against Michael Watkins, David Allen, and the Woodstone Companies.
- Defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims.
- The Supreme Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner who arrives at the scene of a confinement, acquiesces in it, and then removes the person capable of ending it create a triable issue of fact as to their intent for the tort of unlawful imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
Yes. A defendant's actions in acquiescing to a confinement and removing the individual who could have ended it creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they actively encouraged, furthered, or ratified the unlawful imprisonment. The court found that even without a direct employment relationship between Dubrovsky and Ebert, a jury could infer Dubrovsky's intent to confine from his actions at the scene, including his hostile statements and his act of leaving with Ebert. Confinement is considered complete when a reasonable means of escape is unknown to the plaintiff. The court also determined that the reasonableness of the restraint presented a question for the jury, precluding summary judgment on the issue of privilege. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim, reasoning that the defendants did not 'initiate' the criminal proceeding as a matter of law. Merely furnishing information to the police and a District Attorney who then exercise their own independent judgment is insufficient to establish liability for malicious prosecution; a plaintiff must show the defendant played a more active role, such as importuning authorities to act.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of third-party liability for the tort of unlawful imprisonment, establishing that liability can attach through ratification or active encouragement, not just direct initiation of the confinement. This lowers the burden for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment by showing a defendant's subsequent actions adopted the tortious conduct. Conversely, the ruling reinforces the high bar for malicious prosecution claims against civilian complainants, protecting them from liability when they provide information in good faith and the decision to prosecute is left to the independent discretion of law enforcement. This distinction is crucial in balancing the rights of the accused against the public policy of encouraging citizens to report potential crimes.
