## Facts

- Plaintiffs visited a remote public recreation area near the Toronto Reservoir in Sullivan County, New York.
- When plaintiffs attempted to leave on April 25, 2005, the access road was blocked by an unoccupied truck; after plaintiffs waited and honked for help, Wade Ebert appeared and refused to move it.
- Ebert contacted Steven M. Dubrovsky, affiliated with Woodstone Lakes Development, LLC and related entities that owned land adjacent to the recreation area.
- Dubrovsky arrived later, told plaintiffs they did not belong there, stated he did not care if they remained there all night, and left with Ebert while the road remained blocked.
- Police eventually arrived and directed that the truck be moved; no criminal charges resulted from the April incident.
- On May 15, 2005, Robert Barrett drove past a “no trespassing” sign on Pine Grove Road, saw a closed gate to a private Woodstone development, and turned around and left.
- Michael B. Watkins, a contractor at the development, reported the May incident to Dubrovsky and David Allen.
- Allen filed a criminal trespass complaint against Barrett at Dubrovsky’s request on behalf of the Woodstone entities; the prosecution was later dismissed for lack of evidence.
- Plaintiffs sued, asserting (among other claims) false imprisonment based on the April road blockage and malicious prosecution based on the May criminal trespass proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ false imprisonment claim where evidence supported an inference that plaintiffs were intentionally confined by a road blockage attributable to Dubrovsky and the Woodstone entities.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim where defendants reported an alleged trespass and a criminal complaint was filed, but prosecutorial authorities exercised independent charging judgment.

## Decision

- The court reversed in part, holding that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the false imprisonment claim against Dubrovsky and the Woodstone entities because triable fact issues existed on intentional confinement and agency/ratification.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim, holding that the record showed defendants merely provided information and did not initiate or actively procure the prosecution as required for liability.
- The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the modification.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires proof that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, the plaintiff was aware of the confinement, the plaintiff did not consent, and the confinement was not privileged.
- Intentional obstruction of the only apparent vehicular exit can constitute confinement; whether a reasonable means of escape existed is commonly a fact question.
- A principal may be liable for confinement carried out by an agent or employee, and ratification or direction of the confinement can support vicarious liability; credibility-dependent agency questions generally are not resolved on summary judgment.
- Malicious prosecution requires, among other elements, that the defendant commenced or continued a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff.
- Merely reporting suspected wrongdoing or furnishing information to law enforcement, without pressuring authorities, supplying known falsehoods, or otherwise causing the prosecution, does not satisfy the “initiation” element when police and prosecutors retain independent discretion.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that a jury could reasonably find plaintiffs were intentionally confined when the sole apparent exit from a remote area was blocked and Dubrovsky allegedly refused to permit their departure, creating triable issues on false imprisonment and agency; however, defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution because their conduct amounted to providing information, not initiating the criminal case.


Barrett v. Watkins, 82 A.D.3d 1569 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011)