Bornschein v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a termination in a prior action was favorable where the dismissal was based on a party’s failure to “complete, sign, and serve answers to interrogatories,” amounting to a failure to prosecute and an acquiescence to dismissal
• “We ... adopt the ‘improper purpose’ formulation ... [for] the element of ‘malice.’ ”
• \[T]he boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a [chapter] 93A violation is a question of law.\ (internal citation omitted) (quoting Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 578 N.E.2d 789, 803-04 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991))
• “To prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish that he was damaged because the defendant commenced the original action without probable cause.... ”
• “The tort [of malicious prosecution] ‘is not confined to the wrongful initiation of criminal proceeding; it may be maintained for the unjustifiable initiation of a civil action.’”
• ‘[t]he tort [of malicious prosecution] is not confined to the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings; it may be maintained for the unjustifiable initiation of a civil action’ . . .

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).