With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107, 129-30 (2d Cir.2004) (quotations and citations omitted). (3) Application Although the Second Circuit has certainly held in some cases that abuse of process does not depend upon whether the action was brought with probable cause or not, there is sufficient ambiguity on this issue in numerous eases in this circuit such that a reasonable officer would not have understood that his acts were unlawful in this case. In particular, as this Court noted in .the September 23 Memorandum and Order (and as discussed supra ), numerous district courts in this Circuit, have suggested that probable cause is a complete defense to a claim for abuse of process. See, e.g., Pierre v. City of New York, 05-CV-5018 (JFB)(KAM), 2007 WL 2403573, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Golden v. City of New York, 418 F.Supp.2d

A: holding summary judgment for the employer was warranted because the only evidence in support of plaintiffs claims was solomons own testimony
B: holding in the alternative that summary judgment was warranted on abuse of process claim because defendants established probable cause to prosecute plaintiffs
C: holding that probable cause existed to search the defendants residence because the warrant affidavit established probable cause that the defendant possessed stolen firearms and because people generally keep firearms at home or on their persons
D: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in severing defendants counterclaim after summary judgment was granted as to plaintiffs claim
B.