OPINION & ORDER Charged with misdemeanor stalking and harassment, Dr. Heleen Mees accepted an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal” — a type of bargained-for disposition available in criminal proceedings in New York courts. Dr. Mees now alleges that the prosecutors in her state-court case failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. She asks this Court to declare their conduct unlawful, vacate the criminal disposition, and award damages against the prosecutors and the City of New York. Whatever the merits of Dr. Mees’s allegations, the Court lacks the power to grant her the relief she seeks. It thus dismisses her claims. I. Background For purposes of this motion, the Court takes as true all factual allegations in Dr. Mees Verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 45, and draws all reasonable inferences in her favor. Dr. Mees is an economics professor, columnist, and author who resides in the Netherlands. FAC 6. For about four years, she maintained a romantic relationship with Willem H. Buiter, a prominent economist in New York. Id.
13-14, 24. On July 1, 2013, police arrested Dr. Mees in New York City after Buiter accused her of harassing him by sending him nude pictures. Id. 14. She spent four days detained at Rikers Island and lost her job as a result of the highly publicized arrest. Id. 15. In February 2014, Dr. Mees agreed to accept an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal under New York Criminal Procedural Law §170.55. An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal — or “ACD” — is a bargained-for disposition available for misdemeanor charges in New York courts. Within six months or a year of the adjournment (depending on the type of case), the court may restore the criminal case to its calendar; if it does not do so, the charges are automatically dismissed and sealed. N.Y.C.P.L. §170.55(2). “Section 170.55 creates a procedure not unlike probation, designed as a special break, given usually to first offenders. The six-month hiatus between adjournment and dismissal is especially significant: It is a period of observation, during which time the defendant’s behavior may be observed to determine whether the prosecutor’s acquiescence in the adjournment was justified.” Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 194 (2d Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). Dr. Mees formally accepted the ACD on March 10, 2014. FAC, Ex. J, at *3. As part of Dr. Mees’s ACD, the court entered a protective order requiring her to attend mandatory counseling sessions as a condition of the dismissal. FAC, Ex. K, at *16; see N.Y.C.P.L. §170.55(3). The ACD expired without any party seeking to restore the case to the court’s calendar, and the case was dismissed and sealed on March 9, 2015. FAC, Ex. J, at *3. According to the complaint, Buiter’s allegations were false. FAC 14. Dr. Mees filed a civil complaint for defamation against Buiter in June 2014. Id. 18. Buiter filed a motion to dismiss, which included four PDF files with 1,251 nude photographs of Dr. Mees. Id. Dr. Mees later obtained those photographs in JPEG format through an application for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Id. 22; see Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2015). Forensic analysis concluded that Dr. Mees did not take those photos (and thus could not have sent them to Buiter to harass him); instead, Buiter surreptitiously took them during Skype video calls with Dr. Mees. FAC
