The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a malicious prosecution case involving Motcomb Estates, Ltd. and CMB Export Infrastructure Investment Group 48, LP. The court ruled on May 21, 2026, affirming a lower court's decision that the plaintiffs failed to adequately demonstrate the absence of probable cause for the underlying action. This ruling has implications for future malicious prosecution claims in New York.
Motcomb Estates, Ltd. and its co-plaintiffs filed the complaint against CMB Export Infrastructure Investment Group 48, LP and others, alleging malicious prosecution. The dispute arose from a previous legal action where Motcomb Estates sought a preliminary injunction against CMB Export, which was ultimately dismissed. The case, indexed as 653343/24, reached the appellate court after the Supreme Court of New York County granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on February 17, 2025.
The plaintiffs contended that CMB Export had initiated the prior action without probable cause and that their claims were baseless. The case was brought to the appellate court after the lower court's ruling, where the dismissal was based on the assertion that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that the defendants lacked probable cause to pursue their claims in the earlier litigation.
In its ruling, the appellate court noted that the presumption of probable cause was established by the earlier court's decisions in the prior action. The court stated, "The complaint... was properly dismissed for failure to sufficiently allege the absence of probable cause to initiate or continue the underlying action." The judges involved in the decision included Moulton, J.P., González, O'Neill Levy, Chan, and Hagler.
The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs' claims were insufficient to overcome the presumption of probable cause. The earlier court had granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and renew. The appellate court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not provide adequate evidence to show that the defendants knew their claims were meritless.
The court further clarified that the reversal of the motion court's orders in the prior action did not determine whether the defendants had probable cause to commence the initial action. The ruling indicated that the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the Term Sheet and alleged fraudulent misrepresentations did not persuade the court that the defendants lacked a colorable claim.
This ruling is significant for future cases involving malicious prosecution claims in New York. It reinforces the importance of establishing probable cause in such cases and sets a precedent that may influence how similar claims are evaluated in the future. The decision indicates that a presumption of probable cause can be difficult to overcome, particularly when previous court rulings support the defendants' actions.
The outcome of this case will likely affect how parties approach litigation in New York, especially in terms of assessing the strength of their claims before initiating legal action. It serves as a reminder for plaintiffs to carefully consider the basis of their claims to avoid potential repercussions from malicious prosecution allegations.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal this decision further. The court filing did not indicate any related cases pending that might affect this ruling. However, the outcome of this case may influence similar disputes in the future as parties navigate the complexities of malicious prosecution claims.