OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Nancy Lara-Grimaldi (“Plaintiff”), individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alexandra Grimaldi (“Grimaldi”), brings the instant Action against the County of Putnam (the “County” or “Defendant”), for the wrongful death of Grimaldi due to her attempted suicide while in pretrial detention at the Putnam County Correctional Facility (“PCCF”). (See generally Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) (Dkt. No. 74).)1 Plaintiff maintains a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the County for Monell violations. (See generally id.) Before the Court is the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Putnam County Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Not. of Putnam County Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 156)). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. I. Background A. Factual Background The Court incorporates by reference the findings of fact in its March 29, 2021 Opinion and Order granting partial summary judgment to Defendants (“First Summary Judgment Opinion”) and assumes the Parties’ familiarity with the facts as recounted there. (See Op. & Order (“First Summ. J. Op.”) at 3-21. (Dkt. No. 140).)2 B. Procedural Background In its First Summary Judgment Opinion, the Court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Defendants.3 (See First Summ. J. Op. at 36.) In that Motion, the Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s pendant state law claims until it had ruled on Plaintiff’s Monell claim. (Id.) On February 2, 2022, the County submitted a pre-motion letter regarding its motion for summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 150.) Plaintiff responded on February 7, 2022. (See Dkt. No. 151.) On February 22, 2022, the Court held a pre-motion conference and adopted a briefing schedule. (See Dkt. (minute entry for February 22, 2022), Dkt. No. 154). On March 22, 2022, the County submitted its Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Not. of Putnam County Mot.; Def’s 56.1 Statement (Dkt. No. 159); Mem. of Law in Supp. of County’s Mot. (“Def’s Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 157); Def’s Decl. in Supp. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 158).) On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff submitted her Opposition. (See Pl’s Mem. of Law in Opp. (“Pl’s Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 167); Pl’s Decl. in Opp. to Mot. (Dkt. No. 166); Pl’s 56.1.) On June 1, 2022, the County submitted its Reply. (Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Def’s Mot. (“Def’s Reply”) (Dkt. No. 169).) I. Discussion A. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). “In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate,” a court must “construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and…resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.” Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted); see also Borough of Upper Saddle River v. Rockland Cnty. Sewer Dist. No. 1, 16 F. Supp. 3d 294, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (same). “It is the movant’s burden to show that no genuine factual dispute exists.” Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004). “However, when the burden of proof at trial would fall on the nonmoving party, it ordinarily is sufficient for the movant to point to a lack of evidence to go to the trier of fact on an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim,” in which case “the nonmoving party must come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to avoid summary judgment.” CILP Assocs., L.P. v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP, 735 F.3d 114, 123 (2d Cir. 2013) (alteration and quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]o survive a [summary judgment] motion…, [a nonmovant] need[s] to create more than a ‘metaphysical’ possibility that his allegations were correct; he need[s] to ‘come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,’” Wrobel v. County of Erie, 692 F.3d 22, 30 (2d Cir. 2012) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)), “and cannot rely on the mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings,” Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Gilmore, 45 F. Supp. 3d 310, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quotation marks omitted); see also Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009) (“When a motion for summary judgment is properly supported by documents or other evidentiary materials, the party opposing summary judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of his pleading….”). “On a motion for summary judgment, a fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 746 F.3d 538, 544 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). At this stage, “[t]he role of the court is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried.” Brod, 653 F.3d at 164 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, a court’s goal should be “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Geneva Pharm. Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 386 F.3d 485, 495 (2d Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)). However, a court should consider only evidence that would be admissible at trial. See Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736, 746 (2d Cir. 1998). “[W]here a party relies on affidavits…to establish facts, the statements ‘must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant…is competent to testify on the matters stated.’” DiStiso v. Cook, 691 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4)). B. Analysis 1. Monell Claim To establish a municipal liability claim, “a plaintiff is required to plead and prove three elements: (1) an official policy or custom that (2) causes the plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a denial of a constitutional right.” Lucente v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284, 297 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wray v. City of New York, 490 F.3d 189, 195 (2d Cir. 2007)). “To satisfy the policy-or-custom requirement, a plaintiff may challenge an express rule or regulation,…allege that the challenged practice was so persistent or widespread as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law[,] or [allege] that the facts imply the constructive acquiescence of senior policy-making officials.” Green v. Dep’t of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 F.4th 1070, 1077 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297, 315 (2d Cir. 2015)). Generally, “[e]stablishing the liability of the municipality requires a showing that the plaintiff suffered a tort in violation of federal law committed by the municipal actors [acting in furtherance of the municipality's] custom or policy.” Askins v. Doe No. 1, 727 F.3d 248, 253 (2d Cir. 2013). However, the Second Circuit has also recognized that “constitutional injuries may be found to exist…in the absence of individual liability, [where] the injuries complained of are not solely attributable to the actions of named individual defendants.” Barrett v. Orange Cnty. Hum. Rts. Comm’n, 194 F.3d 341, 350 (2d Cir. 1999); cf. Askins, 727 F.3d at 253 (explaining that plaintiff need only “plead and prove against the municipality that municipal actors committed the tort against the plaintiff and that the tort resulted from a policy or custom of the municipality[,]…[and] the plaintiff need not sue the individual tortfeasors at all”) (citations omitted). In Barrett, the Second Circuit determined that a county commission could be liable for allegedly discriminatory employment decisions, even though individual members were not, because “many of the adverse employment actions…were taken by the [c]ommission as a whole.” 194 F.3d at 350; see also Rutigliano v. City of N.Y., 326 F. App’x 5, 9 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (noting that the rule in Barrett applies “only in very special circumstances…. where the combined acts or omissions of several employees acting under a governmental policy or custom…violate [a plaintiff's] rights” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). In her Memorandum of Law, Plaintiff relies on Barrett to argue that, even though the Court has dismissed her deliberate indifference claim against the Individual Defendants, the County is still liable because the Individual Defendants’ collective or combined acts and omissions acting under county policy violated Grimaldi’s rights. (See Pl’s Mem. at 10.) The County argues that Monell liability is foreclosed because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the officers collectively committed a tort against Grimaldi. (See Def’s Reply at 2-3.) The Court agrees with the County. Plaintiff’s claim fails because she has provided no evidence that these combined actions establish deliberate indifference on the part of the County. Without citation to the record, Plaintiff asserts that “[c]ollectively, the County employees [Napolitano, Jackson, and Stewart] failed Ms. Grimaldi…[by deciding] to place Grimaldi on regular supervision.” (Pl’s Mem. at 12.)4 Plaintiff additionally asserts that “[Individual Defendants'] combined acts and omissions led to Ms. Grimaldi’s…death” before re-hashing the Court’s findings of fact concerning the decisions made by PCCF staff leading up to Grimaldi’s suicide attempt in its First Summary Judgment Opinion. (Pl’s Mem. 13-16.) However, Plaintiff has not brought to the Court’s attention any facts that would contravene the Court’s holdings in the First Summary Judgment Opinion that, no reasonable jury could “find that [Individual] Defendants should have known of an excessive risk that Grimaldi would attempt suicide” and “no reasonable jury could find that awareness that Grimaldi expected withdrawal symptoms would, without more, indicate a significant risk of suicide to [the Individual Defendants].” (First Summ. J. Op. at 28, 31.)5 Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the County was deliberately indifferent. See Hahn v. Horry County, No. 11-CV-2840, 2012 WL 3096034, at *5 (D.S.C. July 3, 2012) (finding no deliberate indifference due to delay in providing mental health medication to a plaintiff that “reported a suicide attempt many years ago, [but] he repeatedly denied present suicidal ideations” and “appeared to be in no acute distress”), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3096042 (D.S.C. July 30, 2012); Crowell v. Cowlitz Cty,, No. 14-CV-5153, 2015 WL 6550729, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2015) (finding no deliberate indifference where “[w]hile drug and alcohol withdrawal is cause for concern,…[the victim] did not exhibit any symptoms of mental health issues during the time of his incarceration”); see also First Summ. J. Op. at 24-33. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that a tort was committed for which the County was responsible, the Court need not analyze Plaintiff’s arguments on the remaining elements of the Monell claim. See Dean v. Town of Hempstead, 527 F. Supp. 3d 347, 454 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (determining that defendant’s Monell claim need not be evaluated where plaintiff had not proved an underlying tort); Hirsch v. New York, 751 F. App’x 111, 116 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (“Because the district court properly found no underlying constitutional violation, its decision to not address the municipal defendants’ liability under Monell was entirely correct.” (citing Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207, 219 (2d Cir. 2006)). 2. State Law Claims Plaintiff alleges four claims under state law: negligence, wrongful death, respondeat superior, and a violation of Article I §6 of the New York State Constitution. (See SAC
