Opinion ID: 1192058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Plaintiff's Malicious Prosecution Claims

Text: We review de novo the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152. To state a claim for malicious prosecution under either § 1983 or New York state law, plaintiff must allege, among other things, termination of the proceeding in plaintiff's favor. E.g., Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938, 947 (2d Cir.1997). Here, the Family Court proceedings were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and were later dismissed. Although such a disposition does not make plaintiff a state-court loser for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we have previously held that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not considered to be a favorable termination for malicious prosecution claims. Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56, 68 (2d Cir.2001); accord Murphy, 118 F.3d at 949; Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 193 (2d Cir.1980). New York courts have extended that rule to malicious prosecution claims based on Family Court abuse and neglect proceedings. See Parkhurst v. Westchester County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 228 A.D.2d 568, 569, 644 N.Y.S.2d 768 (2d Dep't, 1996). Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to allege that the Family Court proceeding was terminated in her favor, and thus plaintiff has failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution.