In People v. Fusco, N.Y.L.J. 7/12/91 p.26 col. 2 (Crim. Ct. Bronx County 1991) defendant was arrested and charged with, inter alia, criminal possession of stolen property. Defendant's case was ACD'd, and defendant then moved to restore the case to the calendar. The court, in granting defendant's motion, reasoned that: CPL 170.55(1) clearly states that both parties must consent to an ACD before the case may be adjourned with a view to dismissal ... This court would rule that a defendant, under the appropriate circumstances, may withdraw his consent to the continuance of an ACD. This court would also rule, however, that the withdrawal of a defendant's consent to an ACD cannot be accepted by the court merely as a change of mind, but rather must ... be predicated on a valid articulable reason. The only issue to be resolved then is whether or not the defendant has stated a valid, articulable reason for withdrawing his consent to the ACD.