OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Darrell King brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the City of Beacon Police Department (the “Department”) and the City of Beacon (the “City”). Plaintiff asserts claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Construing the amended complaint (“AC”) liberally, plaintiff also brings state-law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Now pending is defendants’ motion to dismiss the AC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #22). For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well pleaded factual allegations in the AC and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, as summarized below. Plaintiff alleges that, on the morning of July 17, 2019, he was arrested at a residence in Beacon, New York. According to plaintiff, three unidentified police officers employed by the Department knocked on the door of the residence and asked plaintiff, “What happened with Vera Hanson?”1 (Doc. #18 (“AC”) 5). Plaintiff alleges that, at the time, Vera Hanson was his romantic partner. Plaintiff allegedly responded that “nothing” had happened, and thereafter one officer replied, “Vera Hanson was here last night and said you choked her.” (AC 5). The officers allegedly “pushed themselves into” the residence, allowing plaintiff to put on his shoes and step out of the apartment before the officers handcuffed and arrested him. (Id.). Plaintiff claims he was not read Miranda rights until he was later “handcuffed to a bench in the interrogation area.” (AC 5). He alleges unnamed officers then informed him he would be charged with obstruction of breathing. Plaintiff also claims he was unable to post bail and was imprisoned from July 17 through August 16, 2019. According to plaintiff, the charges were “dismissed on an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal for one year which expire[d] October 23, 2020.” (AC 7). He claims “[t]here was false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.” (Id. 6). Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the Department and the City’s unlawful conduct, he was forced to spend his birthday in jail, attend court six or seven times, and that he was unable to work and thus incurred financial harm from losing his newly-secured job and apartment, and being forced to move. Plaintiff alleges the Department and the City, “their officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees were negligent in falsely arresting” and imprisoning him, and that they maliciously prosecuted him. (AC 39). Plaintiff also claims defendants intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress upon him, and implemented or executed “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted or promulgated by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy,” that violated his constitutional rights. (AC
