With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". criminal convictions and, thus, support the conclusion that the prosecution of the resisting arrest charge ended in plaintiffs favor. Under similar circumstances, other courts have found no bar to a malicious prosecution claim. See, e.g., Ahern v. City of Syracuse, 411 F.Supp.2d 132, 151 (N.D.N.Y.2006) (permitting malicious prosecution claim for resisting arrest charge to proceed despite finding of probable cause as to skateboarding and unlawful possession of marijuana charges); Kavazanjian v. Rice, No. 03-CV-1923 (FB), 2005 WL 1377946, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2005) (finding malicious prosecution claim for criminal mischief charge not barred by conviction for, inter alia, assault, resisting arrest, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle); Pichardo, 1998 WL 812049, at *4 (<HOLDING>); Sassower v. City of White Plains, No.

A: holding that conviction on misdemeanor assault charge did not bar malicious prosecution claim for misdemeanor resisting arrest charge
B: holding that unlike malicious prosecution claim false arrest claim accrues on the date of the arrest
C: holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer
D: holding the same for malicious prosecution
A.