Whether the dismissal of criminal charges against Plaintiff, in the interest of justice, constituted a termination of the proceedings in her favor.

Yes. The circumstances surrounding the termination were not inconsistent with Plaintiff's innocence because it was clear the charges were dismissed due to Plaintiff's innocence and a groundless prosecution.

Plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against Defendant after a criminal complaint against Plaintiff, based upon Defendant's claims of assault, was dismissed in the interest of justice. Plaintiff and her husband were going through a bitter divorce. While the divorce was proceeding in Kings County Supreme Court, Plaintiff's husband, a New York Police Department Lieutenant, "purported to obtain a divorce in the Dominican Republic and marry Defendant" and subsequently failed to comply with orders from the Court. Service with contempt proceedings was thwarted three times, once by Defendant and twice by the Police Department. Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered that the service papers be nailed to Husband's door. Pursuant to that order, Plaintiff, accompanied by the process server, took a hammer and nails to Husband's home. Defendant and Plaintiff entered into an altercation. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff had pushed and threatened her, and charges were brought against Plaintiff.

The Criminal Court dismissed the complaint in the interest of justice, finding the charges to be groundless. The Court stated that Plaintiff did not have an intent to injure, harass, annoy, or alarm; that she was authorized to nail the papers to the door; and that she had the hammer to carry out the Supreme Court orders, not to use it as a weapon. After the charges were dismissed, Plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against Defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that dismissal in the interest of justice was not a termination in favor of Plaintiff.. The Supreme Court denied Defendant's summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the complaint.

The Court noted that in order to prove malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish the malicious instigation of a criminal proceeding without probable cause, and its termination in favor of the accused. This case deals with the latter requirement. Smith-Hunter v. Harvey, 95 N.Y.2d 191 (2000) established the rule that "any termination of a criminal prosecution, such that the criminal charges may not be brought again, qualifies as a favorable termination, so long as the circumstances surrounding the termination are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused." Here the dismissal in the interest of justice clearly stated that the charges were dismissed because Plaintiff was innocent. In addition, the Court stated that Ward v. Silverberg, 85 N.Y.2d 993 (1995), "did not establish a per se rule that a dismissal in the interest of justice can never constitute a favorable termination." Rather, the Court found, "the question is whether, under the circumstances of each case, the disposition was inconsistent with the innocence of the accused."