The opinion of the court was delivered by: Johnson, Senior District Judge
Plaintiff Jimmy Stefanopoulos ("Plaintiff") brought this action for money damages against the City of New York ("the City"), Detective Stukonis ("Stukonis") and unidentified New York City Police Officers ("NYPD officers") (collectively, "Defendants") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") and New York State tort law. This Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Currently before this Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Factual and Procedural Background
On November 11, 1999, Plaintiff owned and operated a social club located at 41-04 99th Street in Corona, New York (Defs.' Mem. Law Supp. Summ. J. at 2; Stefanopoulos Dep. Part 1 at 96, 123-24).*fn1 Although Plaintiff did not have a license to distribute or sell alcoholic beverages, he served alcohol to patrons (Defs.' Mem. Law Supp. Summ. J. at 2; Stefanopoulos Dep. Part 1 at 83, 90-91, 106, 109). At approximately 7:00 p.m. on November 11, 1999, approximately ten uniformed NYPD officers entered Plaintiff's club pursuant to a valid search warrant (Defs.' Mem. Law Supp. Summ. J. at 2; Stephanopoulos Dep. Part 1 at 96; Criminal Complaint). Plaintiff was searched and an illegal switchblade was recovered from his person (Defs.' Mem. Law Supp. Summ. J. at 2; Stephanopoulos Dep. Part 1 at 110-11). Plaintiff was subsequently placed in handcuffs and transported to the 110th Precinct, where officers informed him that his arrest was for illegally carrying a knife and selling liquor without a license (Defs.' Mem. Law Supp. Summ. J. at 2-3; Stephanopoulos Dep. Part 1 at 118, 124-25, 131).
On July 26, 2004, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' proffered grounds for summary judgment were that:
(1) the existence of probable cause to arrest and to prosecute Plaintiff precluded his claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution;
(2) Stukonis was entitled to qualified immunity from liability;
(3) Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a claim for excessive force;
(4) Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was not supported by any evidence;
(5) any claim against Stukonis arising from Queens Central Booking ("QCB") should be dismissed for lack of personal involvement;
(6) Plaintiff could not show that a policy, custom, or practice of the City of New York existed that violated his constitutional rights;
(7) Plaintiff's conspiracy claim was conclusory and speculative, and not supported by any credible evidence;
(8) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim failed as a matter of law;
(9) Plaintiff's claims sounding in negligence were not actionable ...