I need facts please.

[dizzycatnip]

Ah. Well, then, HG. I suppose it would be true to say that, yes, dizzycatnip can sue his ex-girlfriend (the lawsuit will just not go very far).

What is said in police reports is covered by a qualified privilege (defeated only by a showing of actual malice) and statements made under oath are considered absolutely privileged. Neither police report statements nor statements made under oath can be used to support a defamation suit (generally). In addition, the statute of limitations would bar any defamation suit from being filed at this point.

And, because an ACD is not a finding of not guilty or a dismissal in dizzycatnip's favor, which is required for a malicious prosecution suit to go forward (as nicely detailed by Stevef with his case cites), a malicious prosecution suit seems out of the question.

BUT, if dizzycatnip has time and money to blow, he can file suit against his ex-girlfriend and then watch while his suit get dismissed.


As a note to dizzycatnip: The fact that you were arrested and charged and granted an ACD may still need to be disclosed on some employment applications. You may also wish to do a background check on yourself to make sure the arrest and charge does not show up - many background check companies mine arrest data but do not update their records to show that arrests were in error, that charges were dropped, that convictions were overturned. If errors appear, contact the background check companies for information on how to get the information on you removed.

As another note: I must type REALLY slow, because both Zig and Blue Meanie beat me to the "yes."

acd? acod* after a time period of six months to a year the case is dismissed

 

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by dizzycatnip
The fact is i do not need proof (I have it) and reguarding the statue of limitations this is no fault of mine this is a circumstance beyond my control.

You keep leaning on that statue. And the fact it is not your fault does not alter the statute of limitations. The fact you ignored the statute of limitations is what matters.

Along with that, you still have no case.

and yes, an acd and an acod are the same thing. Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. If you will refer back to stevef's post with the case law cites, they refer to it as an acd.

 

[dizzycatnip]

I relied on OP's statement that the ACOD meant that the "case will be dismissed in my favor and i am put back to my original state as if i was never charged or arrested." It seems that the ACOD isn't really that.

Actually a Acod is exactly that, after six months the case is dimissed.

 

[dizzycatnip]

but ya gotta love this one:

You keep leaning on that statue. And the fact it is not your fault does not alter the statute of limitations. The fact you ignored the statute of limitations is what matters.

Along with that, you still have no case.

and yes, an acd and an acod are the same thing. Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. If you will refer back to stevef's post with the case law cites, they refer to it as an acd.[/QUOTE] acd? its acod try getting that right first.

 

[quincy]

Why, exactly, did you report my post, dizzycatnip?

What you were granted was a delayed adjudication (an ACD or ACoD) - which meant that no guilty charge would be entered during your probationary period. This does not mean you were innocent of the charge. You were just able to escape having a criminal record.

And, again, you have no case against your ex-girlfriend because, one, there is nothing to support either a defamation suit or a malicious prosecution action (at least based on what you have posted here), and, two, you waited too long. There is a one year time within which you must file a defamation suit. That time has passed.

And, also again, the arrest and charge, even if they do not appear on a criminal history background check, may still need to be reported on some employment applications. It is not entirely like the arrest and charge never happened. There is a non-public record kept.

 

[>Charlotte<]

acd? its acod try getting that right first.

It's either one. Prepositions are routinely dropped from abbreviations.

 

[justalayman]

Actually a Acod is exactly that, after six months the case is dimissed.

then you can argue without legal journal stevef cited when he posted this:

An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (“ACD”) is a non-final disposition. It is not a “favorable termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution action” ( Lewis v. Counts, 81 A.D.2d 857, 438 N.Y.S.2d 863). Since it is made prior to a decision on the merits, an ACD leaves open the question of guilt, thereby precluding an action for malicious prosecution by one who accepts such a disposition ( Fair v. City of Rochester, 84 A.D.2d 908, 446 N.Y.S.2d 668). The purpose of the statutory ACD procedure was to provide a shield against the criminal stigma that would attach to a defendant accepting such an adjournment; it was not intended to present such a defendant with a sword for recovery of monetary damages as a result of the prosecution (*309 Triebwasser v. State of New York, 117 Misc.2d 92, 457 N.Y.S.2d 407). While such an adjournment is neither a conviction nor an acquittal, it does interdict an action for malicious prosecution ( Hollender v. Trump Village Cooperative, 58 N.Y.2d 420, 461 N.Y.S.2d 765, 448 N.E.2d 432).

Lancaster v. Kindor 98 A.D.2d 300, 308-309, 471 N.Y.S.2d 573, 579 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,1984)