OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Mendelson’s motion for reconsideration of portions of the Court’s February 15, 2022 Order. (ECF No. 18.) I. BACKGROUND The background of this matter is set forth more fully in the February 15, 2022 Order, in which I dismissed all claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint except for a Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Mendelson for allegedly pulling Plaintiff over without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff initiated this action on February 5, 2021, in the Supreme Court of New York, Putnam County. (ECF No. 1-2.) Defendants removed the case to this Court on February 16, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on April 23, 2021. (ECF No. 10.) On May 24, 2021, Mendelson and the Village of Brewster1 moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 11-14.) They argued, as relevant here, that (1) Plaintiff had failed to properly serve Defendant Mendelson; and (2) Plaintiff failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Mendelson. (See ECF No. 14 at 4-6, 15-16.) In support of their argument that Mendelson had never been served, Defendants filed an affidavit from Mendelson, in which he asserts that he was not served with the complaint personally, or by mail or hand delivery to his home or his place of employment. (ECF No. 13.) On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed an affirmation signed by counsel, instead of a memorandum of law, as required by Local Rule 7.1. (See ECF No. 15.) In response to Defendants’ argument that Mendelson had never been properly served, Plaintiff attached an Affirmation of Service, signed by Plaintiff’s counsel under penalty of perjury, in which counsel asserts that on February 5, 2021 — prior to removal — she personally served “Village of Brewster Clerk and Treasurer, Michelle Chiudina who stated that she was authorized to receive the summons and complaints on behalf of the 3 defendants…including Police Officer M. Mendelson.” (Id. at 4.)2 With their reply brief, Defendants filed a sworn affidavit from Ms. Chiudina, in which she asserts that (1) she acknowledged the receipt of papers delivered by Plaintiff’s attorney but never stated that she was legally authorized to receive papers on behalf of Mendelson; and (2) she is not an agent authorized to receive service on behalf of Mendelson. (ECF No. 16-1
