Forum Post: About Disorderly Conduct and ACD's when you get arrested.

Be careful about disposing of your cases in court if you have been arrested. The courts have held that if you take an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal) you will have for claim for malicious prosecution dismissed but you may try and make out a claim for false arrest if you can show lack of probable cause by the police.

See Scherr v. City of Lackawana, 79 A.D.3d 1785, 913 N.Y.S.2d 602 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept. 2010).

On appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action for, inter alia, false arrest and malicious prosecution, plaintiff contends that his acceptance of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) with respect to the underlying charge of criminal possession of stolen property does not constitute a waiver of the right to contend herein that there was no probable cause to arrest him. We agree with plaintiff that, although his acceptance of an ACD bars his cause of action for malicious prosecution, it “does not interdict an action for false imprisonment”

And See Molina v. City of New York, 28 A.D.3d 372, 814 N.Y.S.2d 120 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2006) which is a Manhattan appellate case":

"Inasmuch as the law enforcement actions upon which this law-suit is premised did not terminate in an acquittal or unqualified dismissal, but merely in an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal ( see Roesch v. Otarola, 980 F.2d 850, 853-854 [1992] ), plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and, on the basis of the alleged malicious prosecution, seeking damages for federal civil rights violations, were properly dismissed ( see Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 194-195 [1980], cert. denied 450 U.S. 920, 101 S.Ct. 1368, 67 L.Ed.2d 347 [1981]; Hollender v. Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 425-426, 461 N.Y.S.2d 765, 448 N.E.2d 432 [1983] ). Plaintiff's acceptance of the adjournment in contemplation of dismissal also operated as a waiver of his right to challenge whether there was probable cause for his arrest and renders untenable his claims for false arrest and imprisonment ( see Hock v. Kline, 304 A.D.2d 477, 478, 758 N.Y.S.2d 640 [2003] ). In any event, it is clear that there was probable cause to support plaintiff's arrest, and the existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to the claims for false arrest and imprisonment ( see Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 [1996]; Tersigni v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 293 A.D.2d 366, 741 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2002] ). Although probable cause was not pleaded as an affirmative defense, summary judgment based on the existence of probable cause was nonetheless permissible since defendants did allege in their responsive pleadings that their conduct toward plaintiff had been justified, thus placing plaintiff on notice that they would contend that allegedly wrongful arrest had been based on probable cause ( see M.J. Williams Corp. v. Roma Fragrances & Cosmetics, Ltd., 121 A.D.2d 278, 279, 503 N.Y.S.2d 734 [1986] )."