exist. Vispisiano v. Ashland Chemical Co., 107 N.J. 416, 426, 527 A.2d 66 (1987); Terrace Condominium Ass’n v. Midlantic National Bank, 268 N.J.Super. 488, 502, 633 A.2d 1060 (Law Div.1993). Only plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim includes the element of a termination in favor of the accused. Her other claims, therefore, accrued at the very latest, when plaintiff had reason to know that the elements of the claims existed. This occurred at or about the time of plaintiffs arrest on July 12, 1985. See, e.g., Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 350-51 (3d Cir.1989) (discussing the distinction between malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and holding that an abuse of process claim accrues on the date of arrest); Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185, 193-94 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Earl v. Winne, 14 N.J. 119, 128-29, 101 A.2d
recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that only malicious prosecution requires a favorable termination of the criminal proceedings and that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process accrue on the date of arrest recognizing validity of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress