Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Boose v. City of Rochester

71 A.D.2d 59 (1979)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Boose v. City of Rochester

New York Supreme Court

71 A.D.2d 59 (1979)

Facts

In June 1975, Miguel Pabon was assaulted by a woman. Pabon complained to police officers of the City of Rochester (defendant) and led the officers to the woman’s house. At the house, Pabon identified his assailant, a woman who appeared to be 18 or 19 years old. The woman told the officers her name was Gloria Jean Boosey. The officers were not sure whether they should believe her. There were many other people nearby who appeared to be hostile to the police officers; rather than risk a confrontation, the police officers left. The officers did not complete their investigation. Several months later, in October 1975, a warrant was issued, charging a Gloria Jean Booth with obstruction. A second incident occurred in August 1975. Anthony Kasper was assaulted by two women, one was about 40 years old, the other was between 14 and 17 years old. Kasper identified the older woman, Ossie Boose, as his assailant. In October 1975, a warrant was issued for this incident, charging a Jane Doe Booze with assault. The officers assumed that the younger woman, who appeared to be 14 to 15 years old in Kasper’s assault, was the same 18- or 19-year-old woman who answered the door after Pabon’s assault. The officer obtaining the warrants was not sure whether Gloria Jean Boose was the person he wanted or even whether Gloria Jean Boose had committed any crime. The actual Gloria Jean Boose (plaintiff) was 23 years old, working for Eastman Kodak, and going to college part-time. Boose appeared at the police station in response to the warrants and was booked, fingerprinted, and held until the end of the day, when she was released on her own recognizance. Based on the lack of identification testimony, the charges against Boose were dropped. Boose sued the City of Rochester for malicious prosecution, negligence, and false imprisonment. The trial court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim and allowed the negligence and false-imprisonment claims to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict against the City of Rochester for $6,000. The City of Rochester appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Simons, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership