## Facts

- Jo-Ann Cantalino was involved in a contentious divorce from her husband, a New York City police lieutenant.
- The husband lived with Jacqueline Danner, also a police officer and his girlfriend (later purported spouse).
- During the divorce, the husband allegedly obtained a foreign divorce and remarried, and repeatedly failed to comply with state-court orders.
- Cantalino sought to hold him in contempt; the divorce court required personal service of motion papers.
- Several service attempts were allegedly obstructed, including an incident where Danner allegedly took papers from a process server and other alleged interference by police personnel.
- The divorce court authorized substituted service by affixing papers to the husband’s home door and mailing them.
- Cantalino and a process server went to the husband’s Staten Island home to affix the papers; the screen door was damaged during the effort.
- Danner confronted them, an altercation occurred, and Danner called police alleging Cantalino pushed her and threatened her with a hammer.
- Police arrested Cantalino and the process server; Cantalino spent a night in jail.
- Criminal charges were filed against Cantalino, including assault, menacing, weapon possession, criminal mischief, and harassment.
- The criminal court dismissed the charges in the interest of justice under CPL 170.40, stating the charges were groundless, Cantalino was acting under a court order, and continued prosecution would be an abuse of the criminal process.
- Cantalino sued Danner for malicious prosecution based on the initiation of the criminal case.

## Issues

1. Whether a CPL 170.40 dismissal “in the interest of justice” can constitute a favorable termination for malicious prosecution.
2. Whether the specific reasons stated for the interest-of-justice dismissal here were inconsistent with Cantalino’s innocence, defeating the favorable-termination element.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated Cantalino’s malicious prosecution claim.
- The Court held that an interest-of-justice dismissal may qualify as a favorable termination when the stated grounds are not inconsistent with the accused’s innocence.
- On this record, the criminal court’s reasons for dismissal supported (and were not inconsistent with) innocence, satisfying the favorable-termination requirement.

## Legal Principles

- A malicious prosecution plaintiff must prove: (1) commencement of a criminal proceeding, (2) favorable termination, (3) lack of probable cause, and (4) actual malice.
- A termination is “favorable” if the charges cannot be brought again and the circumstances of the disposition are not inconsistent with the accused’s innocence; the disposition need not affirmatively establish innocence.
- A CPL 170.40 interest-of-justice dismissal is discretionary and context-dependent; it is not automatically favorable or unfavorable for malicious prosecution.
- Courts must examine the stated reasons and surrounding circumstances of an interest-of-justice dismissal; dismissals grounded in mercy, compromise, or other guilt-indicative rationales may be inconsistent with innocence, while dismissals describing charges as baseless or wrongful may satisfy favorable termination.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that an interest-of-justice dismissal can satisfy the favorable-termination element of malicious prosecution when the dismissal’s stated basis is not inconsistent with innocence, and it allowed Cantalino’s claim against Danner to proceed because the criminal court dismissed the case as groundless and improper.


Cantalino v. Danner, 96 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 2001)