Document Sample
Falselmprisonment_Parvi_v_CityOfKingston Powered By Docstoc
					This is the highest court in NY – there is no NY supreme court.

Parvi v. City of Kingston, Court of Appeals of NY, 1977 Issue: Was P conscious and aware of the confinement? Reasoning
False Imprisonment


(1) Police tried to break up a noisy quarrel where P was. All people involved in the quarrel were under the influence of alcohol. P said he had nowhere to go. (2) Police put him in car and took him outside city limits to “dry out”

Intent Direct restraint of physical liberty Without adequate legal justification Consciousness/awareness of imprisonment

There is a difference between not knowing what was going on then and what he remembered at the trial later. Court believes that he had conscious sense give what the police said about his actions. It is possible that the accident or memory problems contributed to him forgetting.

Parvi testified that he didn’t have independent memory of what went on that night. Police testified that P:  Responded to their command to get in the car  Had a serious discussion with them (colloquy)  Asked to be left somewhere else.

Dissenting Opinion: No false imprisonment
– P was not aware and had to recollection of what was going on. He knew things because he was told of them afterwards and not because he remembered himself. Awareness/Conssciousness is sine qua non. P did not show evidence related to other elements of of False Imprisonment (no prima facie case)

Held: Reversed – Judgment for P?? (what is it that they reversed????)
Question: Isn’t this just one element? Dissenting opinion says: P did not show evidence for other elements.

Procedure: P sued for false imprisonment – the trial court and the Appellate Division both dismissed the case – P is appealing.
sine qua non: (see-nay kwah nahn) Latin for "without which it could not be," an indispensable action or condition

Shared By:
Tags: Torts, case, briefs