Opinion ID: 786706
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Procedural History in the District Court

Text: 50 On July 28, 2000, the district court heard oral argument on Carriere's motion for summary judgment. The court rejected Carriere's argument that the dismissal of the indictment as against Rothstein did not constitute a favorable termination within the meaning of New York law. In doing so, the district court expressed its view that Rothstein, who had not cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue, might be entitled to it. Specifically, the district court observed that any dismissal of a prosecution that did not involve an admission of guilt by the defendant was a favorable termination: 51 That element is about is there or isn't there a favorable termination. It doesn't really matter for that element what the reason was unless the reason related to him pleading guilty or something, the plaintiff pleading guilty or something like that.... That would not be considered favorable. It doesn't matter what the reason is, it is an element that requires that the proceeding be terminated favorably, and clearly it was. 52 When Carriere's counsel argued that it indeed mattered why the case was dismissed, the district court continued: 53 What I'm saying is, the reason doesn't matter. Both sides spent a lot of time on the reason. What I'm saying is, unless the reason had something to do with the plaintiff, himself, Mr. Rothstein, himself, accepting some kind of liability or responsibility, the reason why it is dismissed against him doesn't matter. 54 The reason we have that element is just to make sure that somebody doesn't get [to] charge[] malicious prosecution who ultimately is found guilty of something. 55 At a pretrial conference on March 18, 2002, the court reiterated its view: I would have thought a dismissal, an outright dismissal of a pending prosecution is a favorable termination whatever the reason is. However, since Rothstein had not moved for summary judgment on the favorable termination element, the district court's remarks left some uncertainty about whether it would be tried. In a letter dated April 3, 2002, just five days before the trial began, counsel for Carriere sought clarification of whether evidence could be offered on the issue at trial. On the morning of jury selection, the district court answered that question, resolving the issue in Rothstein's favor: It's undisputed that the indictment against Mr. Rothstein was dismissed, and I don't see any indication, in the evidence that's being proffered by the defendant, that the dismissal was anything but a favorable termination. Thus, evidence on the issue was precluded, and the district court instructed the jury that the dismissal was a favorable termination. 56