OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Mildred B. Mendelson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and New York state law against the Town of Pound Ridge, Police Officer Jonathan J. Evans (“Officer Evans”), and Detective Gregory E. Walz (“Detective Walz,” and, together with Officer Evans, the “individual defendants”). Plaintiff brings a claim for excessive force, as well as state-law claims for battery and prima facie tort. Now pending are defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. #57), and plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. §1927. (Docs. ##71, 72). For the following reasons, the partial summary judgment motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the sanctions motion is DENIED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367. BACKGROUND The parties have submitted memoranda of law, declarations with exhibits, and statements of undisputed material facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, which together reflect the following factual background. I. Altercation at Pound Ridge Police Department On April 11, 2019, plaintiff, a then-seventy-two year old woman, visited the Pound Ridge Police Department to lodge a formal complaint regarding Officer Evans. Plaintiff claims Officer Evans and Detective Walz — the two police officers working the front desk of the Police Department building at the time — ignored plaintiff’s complaint, laughed at her, and then “bodily ejected” plaintiff out of the building “with the application of excessive and deadly force,” before arresting plaintiff and charging her with disorderly conduct. (See Doc. #71-4 (“PSMF”)
35, 47, 54, 57). Officer Evans’s body camera recording reflects that shortly after the altercation, Pound Ridge Town Supervisor Kevin Hansan (“Supervisor Hansan”) congratulated the individual defendants for their conduct in neutralizing plaintiff. Plaintiff’s sworn statements in her affidavits as well as her contemporaneous emails reflect that in the days that followed the altercation and arrest, she filed a formal complaint with Police Chief David Ryan (“Chief Ryan”). According to plaintiff, Chief Ryan refused to accept the complaint and instead described the individual defendants’ conduct as “justified.” (PSMF 68). II. Portale Randazzo’s Potential Conflict-of-Interest Plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions arises out of the purportedly improper representation of defendants by their former counsel, James A. Randazzo, Esq., and his law firm, Portale Randazzo, LLP (“Portale Randazzo”). Plaintiff and Portale Randazzo agree that on April 14, 2019, plaintiff left a voicemail message with Portale Randazzo in which she sought a consultation to discuss her altercation and arrest. However, the parties dispute the subsequent interactions between plaintiff and the named partners of Portale Randazzo, Mr. Randazzo and Richard A. Portale, Esq. Plaintiff contends that on April 16, 2019, Mr. Randazzo returned plaintiff’s call and spoke with her for thirty minutes. Plaintiff insists that during this call, she offered additional background on the case, disclosed “litigation and case strategy,” and discussed relevant documents in her possession. (Doc. #71-2 (“Mendelson Aff.”)
