Mediavilla v. City of New York (259 F. Supp. 3d 82, 2016)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:

Jose Mediavilla, a participant in several Occupy Wall Street protests that took place in downtown Manhattan in 2011 and 2012, filed a complaint asserting that his rights were violated in connection with his arrests on November 5, 2011 and November 12, 2011 by members of the New York City Police Department. Before me is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants City of New York, Lieutenant Michael 'Zielinski, Deputy Chief Steven Anger, Police' Officer Anthony Ciaramita-ro, and Deputy Inspector' Elisa Cokkinos, seeking the dismissal of all caúses of action, and Plaintiff Jose Mediavilla’s cross motion to amend the complaint. Because I find that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and that, even if probable cause did not exist, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in its entirety. In addition,, because I find Plaintiffs proposed amendment to his First Amended Complaint is futile in light of the existence of probable cause and the individual Defendants’ qualified immunity, Plaintiffs cross motion to amend the First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

I. Background

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Plaintiff Jose Media-villa, (“Plaintiff’ or “Mediavilla”), was a participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement. (P’s Resp. 56.1, ¶ 1, Response 1-1.)

A. November 5, 2011 Incident

On Saturday, November 5, .2011, Plaintiff participated in a political demonstration in front of 60 Centre Street in Manhattan. The demonstration purportedly related to “a consumer action” called “Bank Transfer Day.” According to Plaintiff, “Bank Transfer Day was a consumer activism initative [sic] calling for a voluntary switch from commercial banksi to not-for-profit credit unions by Saturday November 5, 2011.” (P’s 56.1, ¶¶ 31-33.) Plaintiff, with other demonstrators, sought to use the stairs of the New York State Supreme Courthouse at 60 Centre Street during the course of this demonstration. (Id. ¶ 31; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 6.) However, officers from the New York City Police Department, (“NYPD”), were blocking access to the stairs by the demonstrators, including Mediavilla, and Me-diavilla “believed that these members of the NYPD were violating the Constitution and betraying their. oath of office.” (P’s 56.1 ¶ 64; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 9.) On that day, Plaintiff was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt with a large light blue Occupy logo on the back and a camouflage marine cover (hat). (P’s 56.1 ¶ 66; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 3.) When Mediavilla was blocked from climbing the stairs, • he “began to locate various police officers to discuss with them the right to public assembly, their oath of office and the fact that their conduct was violating their oath of office: and our constitutional rights.” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 11; see P’s 66.1 ¶¶ 66-67.) According to Mediavilla, he “sought to speak to a number of different officers in a calm manner, unfortunately, virtually all of them ignored [his] attempts to converse about these important issues,” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 12; P’s 56.1 ¶ 68), and he also attempted to have a similar conversation with police officers who were in a line near the bottom of the courthouse steps but felt they too did not respond to him “in any meaningful way,” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶¶ 13-14; P’s 56.1 ¶ 68).

Defendant Lieutenant Zielinski, (“Defendant Zielinski” or “Lieutenant Zielin-ski”), stated, through the bullhorn, “Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lieutenant Zielinski, I am with the Manhattan South Task Force, you are blocking pedestrian traffic. I am ordering you to leave the sidewalk. If you do so voluntarily no charges will be filed against you. If you refuse to leave you will be placed under arrest and charged with disorderly conduct.” (P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 24, Response 24-1; TARU 06:40-07:08.) Lieutenant Zielinski and other officers continued to issue orders using the bullhorns, instructing the demonstrators to “move back” and “ladies and gentlemen, you need to move back.” (P’s Resp. 56.1, ¶ 28, Response 28-1; TARU 07:33-07:52.) Lieutenant Zielinski then instructed the demonstrators through the bullhorn that the sidewalk was closed, stating “Ladies and gentlemen you’re going to have to leave this area, okay. Right now it’s temporarily closed, you’re going to have to leave the sidewalk. Right, because you’re blocking the walkways, right now it’s unsafe. You’re blocking the walkway, you need to move. Right now it’s a danger, it’s a hazard, you need to move.” (P’s Resp. 56.1, ¶44, Response 44-1; Youtubel 03:25-03:46.) Lieutenant Zielinski and other officers issued similar orders to clear the sidewalk multiple times. (See P’s Resp. 56.1, ¶¶ 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 60, 63, Responses 45-1, 46-1, 51-1, 53-1, 54-1, 60-1, 63-1; TARU 10:56-11:02, 11:12-11:17, 11:42-11:47, 12:06-12:20, 12:25-12:31; Youtubel 04:00-04:15, 04:29-04:37, 05:44-06:00; MV1 01:13-01:21, 01:30-01:40.)

After not getting what he believed to be a meaningful response from other officers, Mediavilla focused his attention on the officer using a bullhorn to direct the demonstrators to leave the sidewalk in front of 60 Centre Street who “seemed to be in charge.” (P’s 56.1 ¶ 71; Mediavilla Aft. . ¶¶ 14-17,) The officer with the bullhorn was Lieutenant Zielinski. (Mediavilla Aft. ¶ 17; P’s 56.1 ¶ 71.) Plaintiff approached Lieutenant Zielinski. (P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 67; Response 67-1; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff and Lieutenant Zielinski were on the same side of one of the plastic fences that the police were using in front of 60 Centre Street. (MV1 08:04-08:10.) Plaintiff, having reduced his objections to the officers’ conduct into the word “treason,” (P’s 56.1 ¶ 73), repeated this word several times to Lieutenant Zielinski loudly enough so that it could be heard clearly over the din of the other protestors and police officers,.(TARU 14:35-14:48). An officer continued to instruct demonstrators to move back and to disperse. (P’s Resp. 56,1 ¶ 71; MV1 08:06-08:10.) Plaintiff remained less than an arms’ length away from Lieutenant Zielinski holding a copy of the U.S. Constitution, (P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 74, Response 74-2), and continued to yell the word “treason” at Lieutenant Zielinski. (P’s 56.1 ¶¶ 78-79; P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶74, Response 74-3; TARU 14:37-14:48.) Lieutenant Zielinski repeated “move back” and/or “move back, sir” at least twice into the bullhorn before saying “this sidewalk is closed, you need to move,” again through the bullhorn which at this time was pointing directly at Plaintiff. (TARU 14:37-14:44; MV1 08:04-08:17.) Lieutenant Zielinski turned to his left, away from Plaintiff, and took a few steps away from Plaintiff. (P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶79, Response 79-1; TARU 14:45-14:48.) Plaintiff pursued him, taking a quick step toward Lieutenant Zielinski on his right side shouting “treason” once more. (Mediavilla Aft. ¶ 18; P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 80, Responses 80-2, 80-3; TARU 14:47-14:48.) Lieutenant Zielinski then turned toward Plaintiff, who repeated “treason” twice while standing within a foot of Lieutenant Zielinski, (Mediavilla Aff. ¶¶ 18-19; Ps 56.1 ¶¶ 78-79; TARU 14:46-14:47.) At this time, Defendant Officer Ciaramitaro reached over the orange plastic fence, grabbed Plaintiff, and brought him behind the plastic fence to a location where, with the assistance of other officers, Plaintiff was brought to the ground, restrained, and arrested. (Media-villa Aff. ¶ 19; P's 56.1 ¶¶ 80-81; Ps Resp. ¶ 82, Response 82-2; TARU 14:47-14:55; MV1 8:27-9:01.)

The police did not have a warrant for Plaintiffs arrest on November 5, 2011. (Ps 56.1 ¶ 90.) Plaintiff was held for approximately twenty-four (24) hours before being released on his own recognizance. (Id. ¶ 91; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff appeared in court a number of times in connection with the November 5, 2011 arrest. (P’s 56.1 ¶94; Mediavilla Aff. ¶21.) On or about July 24, 2013, the charges against Plaintiff stemming from the November 5, 2011 arrest were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, and were eventually dismissed and the records sealed pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.55. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 95; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 21.)

B. November 12, 2011 Incident

On the evening of November 12, 2011, Plaintiff was at the front of a nighttime silent march. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 96; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 24.) The intended route for the silent march began at Zuccotti Park, was to go past the Federal Reserve Bank and then return back to Zuccotti Park. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 98.) Plaintiff was wearing a “Guy Fawkes” mask on the side of his head such that it did not cover his face. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 104; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 28.) As Plaintiff and the other demonstrators approached the Federal Reserve Bank, at approximately 10:15 p.m., he was apprehended and arrested by an officer wearing a blue shirt with the words “Community Affairs” printed on it. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 105; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 29.) That officer transferred Plaintiff to Officer Michael Hu who processed the arrest and charged Plaintiff with a violation of Public Law Section 240.35(4), Loitering-Disguised in a Public Place. (P’s 56.1, ¶ 105; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 29.)

. The police did not have a warrant for Plaintiffs arrest on November 12, 2011. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 113; Stecklow Deck, Ex. Q.) Plaintiff was held for approximately ten (10) hours before being released with, a summons. (P’s 56.1 ¶ 114; Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 36.)

Based on his November 5 and November 12, 2011 arrests, Mediavilla brings seven causes of action pursuant - to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) deprivation of federal civil rights; (2) false arrest; (3) failure to intervene; (4) malicious prosecution; (5) excessive force; (6) violations of his-rights under the First Amendment; and (7) municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on October 29, 2014, naming the City of New York and Chief Anger, Officer Ciaramitaro, Lieutenant Zielinski, and Officers “John Does 1-10.” (Doc. 1.) On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding fourteen additional officer defendants to the complaint (“First Amended Complaint”). (Doc. 4.) In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the relevant provisions of the United States Constitution. (Compl. ¶¶ 82-166.) On March 18, 2015, Defendants filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff filed a letter in response on March 31, 2015, (Doc. 48), and I held a pre-motion conference on April 23, 2015. At that conference, I set the briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to dismiss and — when Plaintiff made clear that he would seek to amend the First Amended Complaint to add additional facts — Plaintiffs cross-motion to amend the complaint. (See Doc. 51 at 18:1-19:18.) On May 18, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation discontinuing the action against certain defendants, and I signed the stipulation that same. day. (Doc. 50.) The following members of the NYPD remain defendants in this action: Lieutenant Zielinski, Deputy Chief Anger, Police Officer Ciara-mitaro, Deputy Inspector Tloczkowksi, Deputy Inspector Cokkinos, Lieutenant Albano, Police Officers “John Does 1-10,” (collectively, the “Officer Defendants”), and the City of New York, (collectively, with the Officer Defendants, “Defendants”). (Id.; see Doc. 64.)

On May 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Doc. 53), along with a declaration, (Doc. 54), attaching exhibits, (Docs. 54-1-54-5), in support, and the next day Defendants filed a memorandum of law in support - of the motion, (Doc. 55). In their memorandum, Defendants asserted, that I could rely on the video evidence as part of their motion to dismiss, but requested that if I determined the videos tb be beyond the scope of my consideration on a motion to dismiss that I convert their motion to one -for summary judgment. (Id. at 4.) By letter dated June 10, 2015, Plaintiff informed me that the parties agreed that the- motion to dismiss should be converted to a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 56.) On June 12, 2015, I issued an order accepting the conversion of the motion to one for summary judgment and set out the order in which Local Rule 56.1 statements should be filed, and I instructed the parties to meet and confer as to the timing for filing their respective statements. (Doc. 57.) In- accord with the schedule proposed by the parties, (see Doc. 59), Defendants filed their Rule 56.1 statement on , July 2, 2015, (Doc. 61), and Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement, (Doc. 70), and an affirmative Rule 56.1 statement, (Doc. 71), on July 21, 2015. On August 28, Defendants filed a counter-statement to' Plaintiffs affirmative Rule 56,1 statement, (Doc. 77.)

While the Rule 56.1 statements were being prepared and filed, the parties continued briefing the instant motion. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed his opposition and the cross motion to amend the First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 64), with a declaration, (Docs. 65), attaching exhibits, (Docs. 65-1-65-65), and a memorandum of law, (Doc. 69), in support. On July 21, Plaintiff filed a second declaration that attached the proposed Second Amended Complaint related to his cross motion to amend. (Docs. 72, 72-1.) On July 28, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting that I strike certain paragraphs from the Second Amended Complaint and strike any legal arguments in his memorandum of law that relate to Plaintiffs November 12, 2011 arrest (the “November 12 Arrest”). (Doc. 73.) On August 29, Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion for summary judgment and in opposition to Plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 78.) On September 18,- Defendants filed a letter with supplemental authority, (Doc. 81), and Plaintiff filed his reply in support of his cross motion to amend the First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 84). After I granted leave, (Doc. 83), Defendant filed a supplemental -reply memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs cross motion to amend on October 2, 2015, (Doc. 87). On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff requested permission to file a supplemental Rule 56.1 statement and that I consider purported statements of Defendant' City of New York, (Doc. 88), and Defendants filed a letter in opposition to Plaintiffs request on July 26, (Doc; 89). I denied Plaintiffs request on July 29. (Doc. 90.)

III. Summary Judgment

A. Legal Standards

1. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment may not be granted unless all of the submissions taken together “show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the mov-ant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Summary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Smith v. Cty. of Suffolk, 776 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a material factual question, and in making this determination,' the court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992); Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2015). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by ... citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials ... Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Video evidence may also be considered on a motion for summary judgment to determine whether material questions of fact exist. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379-80, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007); Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 215 n.6 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment based on probable cause and qualified immunity in part relying on video evidence where plaintiff did not dispute accuracy of video, but “dispute[d] only how to characterize that evidence”); Heicklen v. Toala, No. 08-CV-2457, 2010 WL 565426, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2010), aff'd sub nom. Heicklen v. Kelly, 409 Fed.Appx. 457 (2d Cir. 2011) (granting summary judgment in part on the basis of facts “supported by incontrovertible video evidence”); see also Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2015) (on motion to dismiss, considering facts revealed by video evidence that the parties agreed was incorporated into the complaint). “[W]here the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.” Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal alteration, quotation marks, and citation omitted).

Once the moving party has asserted facts showing that the non-movant’s claims or affirmative defenses cannot be sustained, “the party opposing summary judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of his pleading; rather his response, by affidavits or otherwise as provided in the Rule, must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “[Cjonclusory statements, conjecture, and inadmissible evidence are insufficient to defeat summary judgment,” Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co. Inc., 651 F.3d 309, 317 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted), as is “mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts .... ” Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Only disputes over material facts — “facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law” — will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

2. Section 1983

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for damages against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws .... ” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In other words, “[t]o state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that defendants violated plaintiffs federal rights while acting under color of state law.” McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, 752 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1703, 191 L.Ed.2d 680 (2015). Therefore, a claim asserting a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause is correctly analyzed as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since it provides redress for alleged violations of an individual’s federal constitutional rights and federal statutory rights by persons acting under color of state law. Annis v. County of Westchester, 136 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir. 1998). Further, “in order to establish a defendant’s individual liability in a suit brought under § 1983, a plaintiff must show ... the defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2013). Vicarious liability is not applicable to § 1983 suits. Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 314 (2d Cir. 2015). Further, “to impose liability on a municipality under § 1983, a plaintiff must identify a municipal ‘policy' or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiffs injury.” Newton v. City of New York, 779 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cty. Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3. Probable Cause

An officer “has probable cause to arrest when he or she has knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime.” Garcia, 779 F.3d at 92 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Probable cause is determined on the basis of facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.” Shamir v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 553, 557 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The arresting officer is “not required to explore and eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before making an arrest.” Garcia, 779 F.3d at 93 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Probable cause with respect to any charge is sufficient; the police need not have had probable cause with respect to each individual charge, Marcavage v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 98, 109-10 (2d Cir. 2012), or for “any charge actually invoked by .the arresting officer at the time of arrest. Stated differently, when faced with a claim for false arrest, we focus on the validity of the arrest, and not on the validity of each charge,” Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2006).

4. Qualified Immunity

The. doctrine of qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments” by immunizing them from suit for damages unless their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Stanton v. Sims, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 3, 5, 187 L.Ed.2d 341 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It thus shields officers from liability unless they are “plainly incompetent” or “knowingly violate the law.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). Therefore, even if there is no actual probable cause to arrest, arresting officers are entitled to qualified, immunity if there was “arguable probable cause” to arrest, meaning that: (1) “it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe probable cause existed,” or (2) “officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on whether there was probable cause. Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737, 743 (2d Cir. 2004). Qualified immunity protects the public official “not just from liability but also from suit[,] ... sparing him the necessity of ... undergoing a trial.” Amore v. Novarro, 624 F.3d 522, 529 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal alterations and citation omitted). “Courts ‘look to the information possessed by the" officer at the time of arrest’ when determining whether an officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable.” Adams v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-6741, 2016 WL 1169520, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2016) (quoting Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2015)).

B. Discussion

1. The November 12 Arrest

As an initial matter, summary judgment must be granted for all claims related to the November 12 Arrest. By letter dated July 28, 2015, during ongoing briefing on Defendants’ converted motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs cross motion to amend the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff provided notice, without further explanation, “that we are removing all reference and claims related to the arrest of November 12, 2011.” (Doc. 73.) Thus, Plaintiff sought to strike all paragraphs in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, as well as “any legal arguments set forth in the memorandum” of law in support of his motion to amend and in opposition to summary judgment, (Doc. 69), related to the November 11 Arrest. (Doe. 73.) Because Plaintiff has abandoned his legal arguments opposing summary judgment on claims related to the November 12 Arrest, I grant summary judgment on those claims. See Jackson v. Fed. Exp., 766 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir. 2014) (observing that, “in the case of a counseled party, a court may, when apprópriaté, infer from a party’s partial opposition [to a motion for summary judgment] that relevant claims or defenses that are not defended have been abandoned” and grant summary judgment on those claims or defenses).

2. The November 5 Arrest

a. Probable Cause

Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed various violations of the New York Penal. Law (“NYPL”). Because a finding of probable cause to arrest Plaintiff vitiates most, if not all, of Plaintiffs claims for relief, I address the issue of probable cause first. Based upon Plaintiffs actions on November 5, 2011, Defendants argue that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff for a myriad of offenses- under the NYPL. I summarize the elements for each of the offenses for which Defendants assert there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

• Disorderly Conduct-Violation of sections 240.20(1) and 240.20(6) require that “[a] person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof ... (1) [h]e engages in . fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or ... (6) [h]e congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse,” NYPL § 240.20(1), (6);

• Obstructing Government Administra- ' tion — Violation of section 195.05 requires that a person' “intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from pérforming an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference,” id. § 195.05;

• Menacing — Violation- of section 120.15 requires that “by physical menace, [a person] intentionally placet ] or attempt[ ] to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury,” id. § 120.15; and

• Harassment — section 240.26 requires that a person, “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person ... follows a person in or about a public place or places; or .engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose,” id. § 240.26.

Criminal violations of NYPL sections 240.20(6) (Disorderly Conduct) and 195.05 (Obstruction of Governmental Administration) overlap to a large degree, because “[a]n officer has probable cause to arrest for obstructing governmental administration where a persqn refuses to comply with an order from a police officer.” Marcavage v. City of New York, No. 05-CV-4949, 2010 WL 3910355, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2010), aff'd, 689 F.3d 98 (2d. Cir. 2012) (quoting Johnson v. City of New York, No. 05-CV-7519, 2008 WL 4450270, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2008) (citing Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also Heicklen v. Toala, No. 08-CV-2457, 2010 WL 565426, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2010), aff'd sub nom. Heicklen v. Kelly, 409 Fed.Appx. 457 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding defendant officer had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff when the plaintiff refused to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse, citing NYPL § 240.20(6)). However, violation of section 195.05 requires interference that is, a least in part, physical in nature.

By attempting to restore order, the police were performing an official function within the meaning of Penal Law § 195.05; However, “interference” under that statute must be in part at least, physical in nature. Appellant did not struggle or do anything to interfere with the. police, and he did not intrude himself into, or get in the way of, an ongoing police activity. Any physical contact between appellant and an officer was initiated by the officer. Appellant’s failure to comply with the order to disperse, without more, lacked the requisite intentional physical component.

See Matter of Kendell R., 71 A.D.3d 553, 554, 897 N.Y.S.2d 83 (1st Dep’t 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted.); see also People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 524, 992 N.Y.S.2d 672, 16 N.E.3d 1150 (2014) (“The interference [required to sustain a § 195.05 charge] must be ‘in part at least, physical in nature’ (quoting People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 102, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 365 N.E.2d 872 (1977)). “Under [NYPL § 240.20(6) ] a person is guilty of committing disorderly conduct if he refuses to obey an officer’s order to move, .unless, the order was purely arbitrary and not calculated in any way- to promote the public order.” Crenshaw v. City of Mount Vernon, 372 Fed.Appx. 202, 206 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Nelson, 500 Fed.Appx. 90, 93 (2d Cir. 2012); cf. Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 375 (2d Cir. 2007) (no probable cause existed for disorderly conduct arrest when there was no evidence in the record that plaintiff had received order to disperse). Therefore, under both statutes there must be a lawful order to disperse. Akinnagbe v. City of New York, 128 F.Supp.3d 539, 546 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (“However, an order must be lawful before. failure to obey it gives rise to liability — under § 240.20(6) by its plain terms, and as courts have construed § 190.05.”); see also Marcavage, 2010 WL 3910355, at *10 (finding that “repeated refusal to follow lawful dispersal orders created probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs for obstruction of governmental administration .,.”).

The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that in order for there to be probable cause to arrest for a violation of § 240.20 there must be “actual or threatened public harm (‘inconvenience, annoyance or alarm’)” and that a defendant “either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or was reckless in creating a risk of those consequences.” People v. Johnson, 22 N.Y.3d 1162, 1164, 986 N.Y.S.2d 407, 9 N.E.3d 902 (2014) (finding “public harm element” not satisfied where criminal defendants were “partially blocking” store entrance but there was “no evidence that anyone trying to enter or leave the store was actually obstructed”); see also People v. O’Neill, 49 Misc.3d 132(A), 26 N.Y.S.3d 215, 2015 WL 5775832 (2d Dep’t 2015) (upholding a finding that the intent element of the disorderly conduct charge was satisfied, noting that ‘“[a] person acts intentionally with respect to a result ... when his [or her] conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct’, and it is commonplace that, absent direct evidence such as a confession, intent ‘may be inferred from conduct as well as the surrounding circumstances’ ” (quoting N.Y. Penal Law § 15.05(1) and People v. Forde, 120 A.D.3d 509, 509, 990 N.Y.S.2d 637 (2014)), Similarly, a violation of § 195.05 requires an intent “to prevent the public servant from engaging in a specific official function.” Dowling v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-4954, 2013 WL 5502867, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013) (quoting In re Armell N., 28 Misc.3d 528, 531, 905 N.Y.S.2d 471 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2010)). I will treat these intent requirements as overlapping. Akinnagbe, 128 F.Supp.3d at 546.

Here, the intent requirement for both statutes is met. Plaintiff concedes— and the video evidence shows — that during the demonstration, he repeatedly shouted “treason” at a close distance to Lieutenant Zielinski, and sought to and did remain at that close distance while Lieutenant Zielin-ski was issuing orders to the demonstrators through the bullhorn. (See generally TARU 14:35-14:50.) Plaintiff testified that, by shouting “treason,” he sought to inform the officers that their orders to the crowd of demonstrators to disperse were “denying the peaceful protesters our right to public assembly.” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 17; see P’s 56.1 ¶ 73.) Plaintiff concedes that as he “approached the Courthouse steps, [he] walked next to a line of police officers, and began speaking to many of them about how the denial of this peaceful public assembly was a betrayal of their oath of office.” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 13; see P’s 56.1 ¶¶ 67, 73.) When no officer responded, “[i]n a very short time, I told the officers present that they were ... committing treason.” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 16; see P’s 56.1 ¶ 73.) Plaintiff apparently altered what he was saying — i.e., from pointing out that by denying the protestors a place to assemble peacefully the officers were violating their oath of office to shouting one word “treason” — to be more inflammatory when no officers responded in “any meaningful way.” (Id. ¶ 14.) Although the wording of Plaintiffs affidavit suggests that he was calmly speaking to the officers, including Lieutenant Zielinski, the video recordings clearly indicate by the time he approached Lieutenant Zielinski his level of discourse had degenerated and eventually he just began shouting “treason,” he appeared agitated and was following within an arm’s length of Lieutenant Zielinski as he moved with the bullhorn. In addition, Lieutenant Zielinski repeats “move back” and/or “move back, sir” at least twice into the bullhorn before saying “this sidewalk is closed, you need to move,” again through the bullhorn which at this time is pointing directly at Plaintiff. (TARU 14:37-14:44; MV1 08:04-08:17.) Lieutenant Zielinski turned to his left, away from Plaintiff, took a few steps away from Plaintiff, but Media-villa pursued him taking a quick step toward Lieutenant Zielinski on Lieutenant’s right side shouting “treason” once more. (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 18; P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 79, 80, Responses 79-1, 80-2, 80-3; TARU 14:45-14:48.) Lieutenant Zielinski then turned toward Plaintiff who shouted “treason” twice more while standing within a foot of Lieutenant Zielinski. (Mediavilla Aff. ¶¶ 18-19; P’s 56.1 ¶¶ 78-79; TARU 14:46-14:47.) As a result of observing Plaintiffs conduct, it was reasonable for Officer Ciaramitaro and the other officers to conclude from Plaintiffs conduct — initially speaking to Lieutenant Zielinski in' multi-word phrases, positioning himself in front of and near Lieutenant- Zielinski, following Lieutenant Zielinski as he moved with the bullhorn, abandoning multi-word phrases and shouting “treason” repeatedly at Lieutenant Zielinski as he was issuing orders to the crowd of demonstrators to clear the sidewalk, (see, e.g., TARU 14:35— 14:48; MV1 08:03-08:13) — that he intended to and was interfering with Lieutenant Zielinski as he made announcements to try and clear the sidewalk.

It is not disputed that orders to disperse were given by Lieutenant Zielin-ski and other officers, and that Plaintiff did not leave the area and/or clear the sidewalk. It is also clear Plaintiff intended to remain on the- sidewalk and Officer Ciaramitaro and the other officers were witnessing Plaintiffs behavior. In light of the clear instructions by officers to leave the sidewalk and disperse, whether the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for Disorderly Conduct and/or Obstruction of Governmental Administration turned on whether Lieutenant Zielinski’s order to disperse and the orders of the other officers were lawfully given or it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the orders were lawful. Akinnagbe, 128 F.Supp.3d at 548. An order must be lawful before failure to obey it gives rise to liability — under § 240.20(6) by its plain terms, and as courts have construed § 190.05. See Marcavage, 2010 WL 3910355, at *10 (finding, that “repeated refusal to follow lawful dispersal orders created probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs for obstruction of governmental administration ...”).

Here, the officers’ orders to disperse were lawful. The New York City Charter § 435(a) states “the police department and force shall have the power and it shall be their duty to ... preserve order at .... all public meetings and assemblages ... regulate, direct, control and restrict the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic for the facilitation of traffic and the convenience of the public ..., ” N.Y.C. Charter § 435(a). The City “certainly has a significant interest in keeping its public spaces safe and free of congestion.” Bery v. City of N.Y., 97 F.3d 689, 697 (2d Cir. 1996); accord Mastrovincenzo v. City of N.Y., 435 F.3d 78, 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[Reducing sidewalk and street congestion in a city with eight million inhabitants[ ] constitutes[s] [a] significant governmental interest ....”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Concerned Jewish Youth v. McGuire, 621 F.2d 471, 478 (2d Cir. 1980) (finding that the interests of residents, visitors, and workers must be balanced with that of protestors); Marcavage, 2010 WL 3910355, at *10 (finding that the refusal of Plaintiffs, holding protest signs in a designated “no standing” or'“no expressive activity zone,” to obey “lawful dispersal orders created probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs for obstruction of governmental administration pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05 and NYC Charter § 435(a).”). The state of congestion on the sidewalk in front of 60 Centre Street is evident in the video recordings. (See generally MV1; TARU.) Lieutenant Zielinski, in ordering the crowd of demonstrators to clear the sidewalk, clearly articulates his reasons to the demonstrators, including the following two examples: (1) “Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lieutenant Zielinski, I am with the Manhattan South Task Force, you are blocking pedestrian traffic. I am ordering you to leave the sidewalk. If you do so voluntarily no charges will be filed against you. If you refuse to leave you will be placed under arrest and charged with disorderly conduct.” (P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 24, Response 24-1; TARU 06:42-07:08), and (2) “[Because you’re blocking the walkways, it’s unsafe. You’re blocking the walkway, you need to move. Right now it’s a danger, it’s a hazard, you need to move.” (P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 44, Response 44-1; Youtubel 03:25-03:46.) Other officers were also making similar statements and instructions. (See P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 60, 63, Responses 45-1,- 46-1, 51-1, 53-1,’ 54-1, 60-1, 63-1; Youtubel 04:00-04:15, 04:29-04:35, 05:44-06:00; MV1 01:13-01:18, 01:30-01:34.) The. officers’ orders to disperse were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to keep the sidewalks safe, which is of “significant interest” to the City. Bery, 97 F.3d at 697. Therefore, the orders to disperse were lawful.

To the extent Plaintiff argues that the orders to disperse were unlawful because they violated Plaintiffs First Amendment right to free speech, “First Amendment protections, while broad, áre not absolute. It is axiomatic, for instance, that government officials may stop or disperse public demonstrations or protests where ‘clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears.’ ” Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 56-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940)) (other internal citations omitted)). As an initial matter, Plaintiff admits that he freely spoke to various police officers before his arrest. (Mediavilla Aff. ¶¶ 11-17.) The fact that he thought he was being ignored or that he did not get what he thought were meaningful responses, does not mean he was restricted from exercising his. First Amendment right to free speech; The Supreme’ Court “has repeatedly held that police may not interfere with orderly, nonviolent protests merely because they disagree with the content of the speech or because they simply fear possible disorder,” Parmley, 465 F.3d at 56 (citing cases); however, Plaintiff has hot cited, and I have not found, any case in which a person’s First Amendment rights would require an official to respond. Moreover, even assuming Plaintiff was engaged in protected speech when he was yelling “treason” at Lieutenant Zielinski, the law is clear that while speech may be protected, Plaintiffs choice to disobey police orders is not. See Heicklen, 2010 WL 565426, at *4 (“To the extent the plaintiff argues that the police orders were unlawful because they violated the plaintiffs First Amendment right to free speech, ‘the First Amendment is not an absolute shield against a disorderly conduct charge,’”) (quoting Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183, 204 (3d Cir. 2008)); People v. Galpern, 259 N.Y. 279, 284-85, 181 N.E. 572 (1932) (“[F]ailure to obey [an order to disperse] in itself is disorderly conduct, ... A refusal to obey such an order can be justified only where the circumstances show conclusively that the police officer’s direction was purely arbitrary and was not.calculated in any way to promote the public order. That is not the case here. The courts cannot weigh opposing considerations as to the wisdom of the police officer’s directions- when a police officer is called upon to decide whether the time has come in which some directions are called for.”).

There is no First Amendment violation when the government “regulates by reasonablé, appropriate and noil-discrimi-natory measures the time, place and manner of use of the streets for public assemblies. ...” People v. Pearl, 66 Misc.2d 502, 321 N.Y.S.2d 986, 988 (1st Dep’t 1971) (per curiam) (affirming disorderly conduct conviction of demonstrator who was blocking crosswalk); see also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 558, 85 S.Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965). “The authority to issue dispersal orders continues to play a commonplace and crucial role in police operations, particularly in urban areas.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 108-10, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (acknowledging situations where police are called upon to order people not to block sidewalks although finding anti-gang loitering ordinance unconstitutionally vague). In this" case, as in Pearl, the protesters were obstructing pedestrian traffic.' Plaintiffs argument that there was no obstruction of pedestrian traffic because the video evidence does not show any pedestrians being affected by the protest, (P’s Mem. 18), is without merit. As the video evidence makes clear, the sidewalk was obstructed by over 100 protestors. (Ds’ 56.1 ¶¶ 13-34, 42; see generally MV1; TARU.) In certain portions of the videos it also appears that the protestors are at times blocking some of the street. (See generally MV1; TARU.) In addition, I find that no reasonable trier of fact would believe that pedestrians would voluntarily stay on the same side of the street and walk through the large crowd of protestors — -some of whom were shouting, chanting, dancing, playing harmonicas, and participating in a human microphone — to get to their intended destination. Rather, it is moré than likely and reasonable to believe that a majority of pedestrians in the vicinity would have steered clear of the demonstrators.

Therefore, I find that there are no material questions of fact concerning whether the demonstrators’ presence on the sidewalk was sufficient to and was obstructing pedestrian traffic. The dispersal orders of the police were a reasonable, appropriate, and limited means of maintaining order and the free movement of pedestrian traffic. Therefore, even if Plaintiff was arrested solely on the basis of his refusal to disperse, I find that the arresting officers had probable cause. Here, not only did Plaintiff refuse to disperse, he also purposefully approached Lieutenant Zielinski because he “seemed to be in charge,” (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 16; see P’s 56,1 ¶ 71), shouted “treason” repeatedly, and made physically provocative movements by following Lieutenant Zielinski that provided the arresting officers with probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for Disorderly Conduct and Harassment pursuant to NYPL §§ 240.20(1) and 240.26.

Criminal violations under §§ 240.20(1), and 240.26 require a showing, respectively, that a person (i) was engaged in “tumultuous or threatening behavior,” or (ii) “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person ... followed] a person in or about a public place or places; or ... engage[d] in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed] acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose,” NYPL §§ 240.20(1), 240.26. The evidence, and indeed Plaintiffs own statements- in his affidavit, demonstrate that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff under either section 240.20(1) or 240.26. Plaintiffs behavior was unquestionably aggressive: the video evidence coupled with Plaintiffs own version of the facts reveals that there can be no genuine disputes of fact regarding whether there was probable cause. The video shows Mediavilla following and remaining close to Lieutenant Zielinski during and after Lieutenant Zielinski repeated orders to the demonstrators to “leave the sidewalk” and “leave the area,” stepping quickly toward Lieutenant Zielinski after he turned away from Plaintiff, and repeatedly shouting “treason” at Lieutenant Zielinski. (Mediavilla Aff. ¶ 18; P’s 56.1, ¶¶ 78-79; P’s Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 44, 74, 80, Responses 44-1, 74-3, 80-2, 80-3; Youtubel 03:25-03:46; TARU 14:35-14:48; MV1 08:09-08:13.) No reasonable trier of fact could find that Plaintiffs behavior was not, at minimum, “tumultuous.” NYPL § 240.20(1). Indeed, contrary to Plaintiffs claim that other protestors were not alarmed by his actions, (P’s Mem. 16), the video reveals that at one point .while Plaintiff is shouting “treason” at Lieutenant Zielinski, a fellow demonstrator repeatedly patted Plaintiffs shoulder in an apparent attempt to calm Plaintiff in light of his aggressive behavior. (TARU 14:45-14:47.) The officers could reasonably have viewed Plaintiff as a potential threat given his conduct. (See MV1 08:02-08:15; TARU 14:30-14:50.) Further, Plaintiff “follow[ed] [Lieutenant Zielinski] in or about a public place,” and “repeatedly commit[ted] acts,” here, his shouts of “treason,” which could reasonably “alarm or seriously annoy” Lieutenant Zielinski and/or other officers and “which serve[d] no legitimate purpose.” NYPL § 240.26.

In sum, I find that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for Disorderly Conduct under NYPL §§ 240.20(1), 240.20(6), Obstruction of Governmental Administration under § NYPL 195.05, and Harassment under § 240.26.

b. Deprivation of Federal Civil Rights

In light of my finding that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, I now turn to Plaintiffs specific claims for relief. Plaintiffs first claim under § 1983 alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Compl. ¶¶ 82-89.) Plaintiff incorporates the entirety of his factual allegations by reference into this claim, (id. ¶ 82); however, he does not explain how this claim is distinct from those identified in his other claims for relief. The allegations in the First Amended Complaint do not give Defendants fair notice of the substantive and factual grounds upon which the claim rests. Plaintiffs claim is therefore insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see Sforza v. City of New York, 07-CV-6122, 2009 WL 857496, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009) (dismissing a § 1983 claim where plaintiff merely listed several Constitutional Amendments and incorporated all his factual allegations without specifying the rights of which he was deprived or the grounds upon which his claim rested). Moreover, Plaintiff does not even attempt to address this particular claim, as opposed to his more specific claims for relief, including claims under the First Amendment, in his opposition papers. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first claim for relief is granted.

c. False Arrest

Next, I turn to Plaintiffs false arrest claim. A false arrest claim requires a plaintiff to prove “(1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged.” Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 95 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and alteration omitted). “To avoid liability for a claim of false arrest, an arresting officer may demonstrate that either (1) he had probable cause for the arrest, or (2) he is protected from liability because he has qualified immunity.” Simpson v. City of N.Y., 793 F.3d 259, 265 (2d Cir. 2015).

Where an arrest is made without a warrant,'“the defendant [in a false arrest case] ... bears the burden of proving probable cause as an affirmative defense.” Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 751 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 458, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310 (1975)). Probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of false arrest. Id. (citing Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 2006)). Because, as discussed in detail above, I find that there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and that no reasonable trier of fact could weigh the Plaintiffs affidavit and the video evidence provided and find that arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff under any one of various NYPL provisions, Plaintiffs false arrest claim is subject to dismissal. See Marcavage, 2010 WL 3910355, at * 10; Dickerson, 604 F.3d at 751.

’ Even in the absence of a finding of probable cause, the arresting officers had “arguable probable cause” because, for the same reasons I finds that probable cause existed, I find that it was objectively reasonable for the arresting officers to believe that probable cause existed. Garcia, 779 F.3d at 92. Specifically, in light of the information available to the arresting officers, in particular Plaintiffs increasingly tumultuous behavior, NYPL § 240.20(1); see supra § III.B.2.a, at the time of the arrest, Adams, 2016 WL 1169520, at *2, and the officers’ mandate to “preserve order at ... all public meetings and assemblages .,. regulate, direct, control and restrict the movement, of. vehicular and pedestrian traffic for the facilitation of traffic and the convenience of the public,” N.Y.C. Charter § 435(a), I find that “it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that probable cause existed,” Escalera, 361 F.3d at 743, or, at a minimum, that “officers of reasonable competence could disagree” over whether there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct, id. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs false arrest claim,

d. Malicious Prosecution

Under New York law,. “[t]he elements of an action for malicious prosecution are (1) the initiation of a proceeding, (2) .its termination favorably to plaintiff, (3) lack of probable cause, and (4) malice.” Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 N.E.2d 1248 (1983)). Liability for the tort of malicious prosecution also gives rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Cook v. Sheldon, 41 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 1994). However, “the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in New York.” Savino, 331 F.3d at 72; see also Colon, 60 N.Y.2d at 82, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 N.E.2d 1248 (discussing malicious prosecution claims). Because, as discussed in detail above, I find that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff and that no reasonable trier of fact could weigh Plaintiffs sworn statements and the video evidence provided and find that arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff under any one of the enumerated NYPL provisions, his malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of law.

Further, even in the absence of probable cause, Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim fails because the charges stemming from his November 5, 2011 arrest were disposed of through an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal,” dr an “ACD.” (Compl. ¶¶ 72-73.) “An individual granted an ACD cannot maintain a Section 1983 action sounding in false arrest or malicious prosecution.” Hines v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., No. 94-CV-5109, 2000 WL 420555, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2000) (citing Johnson v. Bax, 63 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 193 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[I]t is well-settled that an accused, in order to maintain a cause of action for. malicious prosecution, must establish that the state prosecution terminated in his favor.... Proceedings are terminated in favor of the accused only when their final disposition is such as to indicate the accused is not guilty. An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal; like a consent decree, involves the consent of both the prosecution and the accused and leaves open the question of the accused’s guilt.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim stemming from his November 5, 2011 arrest fails for the independent reason that the state prosecution did not terminate in his favor. Singleton, 632 F.2d at 193.

Finally, in the alternative, it is clear that the arresting officers would be entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim. “[Cjontinuing probable cause is a complete defense to a constitutional claim of malicious prosecution.” Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2014). A police officer has qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution claim if the officer had “arguable probable cause” to charge the plaintiff with the crimes charged. Jean v. Montina, 412 Fed.Appx. 352, 354 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order). Arguable probable .cause to charge exists if there was arguable probable cause to arrest, the plaintiff for the crimes in question, and no “new information learned .subsequent to [the] arrest” made it “ ‘manifestly unreasonable for the defendant officer,, to charge the plaintiff with [those crimes].” Id. (quoting Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 572 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal alternations omitted)). “If probable cause existed at the time of arrest, it continues to exist at the time, of prosecution unless undermined ‘by the discovery of some intervening fact.’” Johnson v. Constantellis, 221 Fed.Appx. 48, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order) (quoting Kinder v. Jackson, 316 F.3d 139, 144 (2d Cir. 2003)).

-As discussed above, the arresting officers had, at a minimum, arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for the crimes charged. There is no allegation that any intervening events or. information made the imposition of charges “manifestly unreasonable.” Jean v. Montina, 412 Fed.Appx. at 354. Therefore, the Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution claim,

e. Excessive Force

Mediavilla further contends that the officers used excessive force during his arrest. (Compl. ¶¶ 112-13, 116-18.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the arresting officers “used excessive force in handcuffing Plaintiff with plastic flexi-euffs that were at. all times too ti|ht, thereby-causing significant pain to his hands and wrists.” (Id. ¶ 113.) “[T]he right to make an arrest ... necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” Rogoz v. City of Hartford, 796 F.3d 236, 246 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). It is “also well established that law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment if the amount of force- they use is objectively unreasonable- in light of thé facts and circumstances confronting them.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Determining whether the force used was reasonable “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. (citation omitted). These facts must be “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene .... at the .moment the force is used.” Id. at 246-47 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Officials are entitled to qualified immunity for an excessive force claim if “their decision was reasonable, even if mistaken.” Id. at 247 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“Courts apply a separate standard to claims for excessive force in the use of handcuffs.” Sachs v. Cantwell, No. 10-CV-1663, 2012 WL 3822220, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2012). Specifically, “in evaluating the reasonableness of handcuffing, a Court is to consider evidence that: 1) the handcuffs were unreasonably tight; 2) the defendants ignored the arrestee’s pleas that the handcuffs were too tight; and 3) the degree of injury to the wrists.” Esmont v. City of N.Y., 371 F.Supp.2d 202, 215 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944-45 (6th Cir. 2002)). Here, too, the inquiry must reflect the facts and circumstances present, including any facts that bear on whether use of an unusual degree of force may have been justified.

The injury requirement is “particularly important,” Sachs, 2012 WL 3822220, at *14, because in order “to be effective, handcuffs must be tight enough to prevent the arrestee’s hánds from slipping out,” Abdul-Rahman v. City of N.Y., No. 10-CV-2778, 2012 WL 1077762, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012) (quoting Esmont, 371 F.Supp.2d at 214). Of course, “handcuffing can give rise to a § 1983 excessive force claim where plaintiff suffers an injury as a result.” Gonzalez v. City of N.Y., No. 98-CV-3084, 2000 WL 516682, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2000). However, “[t]here is a consensus among courts in this circuit that tight handcuffing does not' constitute excessive force unless it causes some injury beyond temporary discomfort.” Lynch ex rel. Lynch, 567 F.Supp.2d 459, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “These injuries need not be severe or permanent, -but must be more than merely ‘de minimis.’” Usavage v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 932 F.Supp.2d 575, 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Washpon v. Parr, 561 F.Supp.2d 394, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); cf. Corselli v. Coughlin, 842 F.2d 23, 26-27 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding that even if injuries suffered were not permanent or severe, a plaintiff may still recovér if force used was unreasonable and excessive). Courts may, decide, excessive force claims, including claims arising from allegations of excessively tight handcuffs, on motions for summary judgment. See Matthews v. City of New York, 889 F.Supp.2d 418, 442-43 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2012) (“The determination of whether tight handcuffing that causes pain and numbness satisfies the injury requirement may be presented in a motion for summary judgment.”) (collecting cases).

Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support his claim for tight handcuffing in either the First Amended Complaint or his affidavit. Specifically, Plaintiff does not allege or identify any evidence in the record that demonstrates that he told any officer that his handcuffs were too tight. See Sachs, 2012 WL 3822220, at *14; Esmont, 371 F.Supp.2d at 215. He also fails to allege or identify any evidence that he suffered any injury at all during his arrest, let alone to support a tight handcuffing claim. See id. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim for relief based on excessive force is granted.

In his memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants’ converted motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff raises a new theory of excessive force, asserting that Plaintiff “was pulled from behind and knocked to the ground, and, once he was on the ground, four to five police officers sat or kneeled on him while effecting his arrest.” (P’s Mem. 14.) Because this theory of excessive force is raised for the first time in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, I need not consider it here. It is well set