The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled on June 17, 2026, in the case of Kurtz v. Kessler, affirming a lower court's decision that denied a motion for summary judgment in a malicious prosecution lawsuit. This ruling affects Karen Kessler, who is appealing the decision, and Maya Kurtz, the plaintiff who claims she was wrongfully prosecuted. The case highlights the complexities surrounding malicious prosecution claims in family law matters.
The dispute began when Kessler, the defendant, initiated a family offense proceeding against Kurtz, her former sister-in-law, in January 2024. The Family Court dismissed Kessler's petition in February 2024, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the parties involved. Following this dismissal, Kurtz filed a lawsuit against Kessler, seeking damages for malicious prosecution, among other claims.
The case reached the Appellate Division after Kessler filed a motion for summary judgment, aiming to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim on the grounds that the Family Court's dismissal did not constitute a favorable termination for Kurtz. The Supreme Court of Suffolk County, presided over by Justice Joseph A. Santorelli, denied Kessler's motion on September 26, 2024, leading to the appeal.
The Appellate Division, which includes Justices Francesca E. Connolly, Linda Christopher, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, reviewed the case and ultimately upheld the lower court's decision. The court ruled that Kessler did not establish that the Family Court's dismissal of her family offense petition was not a favorable termination for Kurtz. The court noted, "the family offense petition was dismissed with prejudice and, therefore, cannot be brought again," indicating that the dismissal was indeed a final resolution in favor of Kurtz.
The ruling emphasized the legal standards for malicious prosecution, which require a plaintiff to show that the prior proceeding was terminated in their favor, among other elements. The court stated, "To satisfy the favorable termination element, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a final disposition of the prior action and that the circumstances surrounding the termination were not inconsistent with his or her innocence." In this case, the court found that the dismissal of Kessler's petition was consistent with Kurtz's innocence.
By affirming the lower court's ruling, the Appellate Division reinforced the importance of the favorable termination requirement in malicious prosecution claims. This decision clarifies that a dismissal with prejudice in a family court proceeding can satisfy this element, allowing Kurtz to proceed with her claim against Kessler.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It sets a precedent for similar cases where individuals seek to claim damages for malicious prosecution, particularly in family law contexts. The decision may encourage other plaintiffs to pursue claims when they believe they have been wrongfully prosecuted, knowing that a dismissal with prejudice can support their case.
Furthermore, this ruling may influence how defendants approach family offense proceedings, as they must now consider the potential repercussions of initiating such actions. If a family offense petition is dismissed, it could lead to a malicious prosecution claim, which could result in financial liability for the defendant.
Looking ahead, Kessler may consider appealing the Appellate Division's decision to a higher court. However, it remains to be seen whether she will pursue this option. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing, but the implications of this ruling may resonate in future family law and malicious prosecution cases.