Key Takeaway
New York court case where plaintiff's attorney's opening statement admissions led to judgment as a matter of law against client for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.
This article is part of our ongoing directed verdicts coverage, with 189 published articles analyzing directed verdicts issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Okunubi v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05886 (2d Dept. 2013)
This must be the worst nightmare of every practitioner. I think I would not sleep for a week if this happened to me.
“An application for judgment as a matter of law may be made at the close of an opposing party’s case, or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401). The grant of such an application prior to the close of the opposing party’s case is generally disfavored (see Kamanou v Bert, 94 AD3d 704; De Vito v Katsch, 157 AD2d 413, 416-417). However, judgment as a matter of law may be warranted prior to the presentation of any evidence if the plaintiff has, “by some admission or statement of fact, so completely compromised his or her case that the court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to one or more defendants” (Beshay v Eberhart L.P. No. 1, 69 AD3d 779, 781; see Ballantyne v City of New York, 19 AD3d 440; Schomaker v Pecoraro, 237 AD2d 424, 425-26; see also Hoffman House, N.Y. v Foote, 172 NY 348, 350; Hardy v State of New York, 294 AD2d 400, 401; Fuller v New York City Bd. of Educ., 206 AD2d 452, 453; De Vito v Katsch, 157 AD2d at 416-417).
Here, prior to the presentation of evidence, the plaintiff’s counsel made certain admissions and statements of fact which demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. Probable cause to believe that a person committed a crime is a complete defense to causes of action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
..
“This admission by the plaintiff, through his counsel, “so completely compromised” his position that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, that the Supreme Court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to the City “
Related Articles
- A less than credible plaintiff sinks his own case
- A party that really blew it gets not only a second but a third chance to correct his mistake
- Combating litigation delay tactics in New York no-fault insurance cases
- Understanding collateral estoppel in New York no-fault insurance
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, CPLR 4401 provisions governing judgment as a matter of law may have been subject to amendments or judicial interpretation updates. Practitioners should verify current procedural requirements and recent case law developments regarding pre-trial dismissals based on opening statement admissions, as appellate standards and procedural safeguards in this area continue to evolve.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Directed Verdicts Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant's Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
Learn about collateral estoppel and privity in NY no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of State Farm v.
Nov 1, 2009
Amendment of caption is allowable
Court ruling allows plaintiff to amend caption to correct corporate name misnomer, establishing no prejudice standard for such procedural corrections.
Dec 2, 2014
The motion that went nowhere
Genovese distinguishes a surviving no-fault contract claim from insufficient fraud and consequential-damages allegations; Data Tree history is clarified.
May 16, 2013
More plaintiffs fail to rebut an insurance carrier’s medical utilization report
Three recent no-fault insurance cases demonstrate how plaintiffs consistently fail to provide adequate medical expert testimony to rebut insurance carriers' utilization reports.
Nov 27, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a directed verdicts matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
![The 120 day time period (CPLR 3212[a]) to make a summary judgment motion applies even if an action is marked off the calendar](https://cdn.jtnylaw.com/blog/the-120-day-time-period-cplr-3212a-to-make-a-summary-judgment-motion-applies-even-if-an-action-is-marked-off-the-calendar.avif)
