OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Theodore Lewis (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985 against Defendants Westchester County, Commissioner of Public Safety Thomas Gleason, Acting in both his Official and Unofficial Capacities, Police Officer Richard Lepore, Jr., Shield Number 1159, Acting in both his Official and Unofficial Capacities, and John Doe Officers 1-5 (Their True Names and Identities Presently Unknown), all acting in both their official and unofficial capacities (collectively, “Defendants”). (Docket No. 26).1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully searched, arrested and prosecuted Plaintiff in violation of his constitutional rights. (See id.). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of Judge Briccetti’s Opinion and Order, dated May 9, 2022, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint. (Docket No. 40). Along with his motion, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law, (Docket No. 39) (“Pl. Mtn.”), a declaration from attorney Thomas M. Gambino, (Docket No. 41), and exhibits, (Docket Nos. 41-1-4). Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition, (Docket No. 49) (“Def. Opp’n”), a declaration from attorney Loren Zeitler, (Docket No. 50), and exhibits, (Docket Nos. 50-1-5), and Plaintiff filed a reply, (Docket No. 52) (“Pl. Reply”). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Plaintiff alleges that, on or about August 19, 2017, he was traveling in the rear compartment of a U-Haul truck on the Hutchinson River Parkway in White Plains, New York. (Docket No. 26 7). Plaintiff was “not the owner, lessor, operator or person in control” of the U-Haul. (Id. 8). Defendant Lepore and the John Doe Defendants stopped the U-Haul for an alleged traffic infraction around 10:30 a.m. (Id. 9). The officers then performed a search of the rear compartment of the U-Haul, where Plaintiff was traveling with other individuals. (Id. 10). Plaintiff alleges that the officers searched the rear compartment, and the bags located therein, without probable cause to do so. (Id.
10-11). Defendant Lepore recovered “an instrument alleged to be a forged [sic] device from within a secured piece of luggage not owned or possessed by Plaintiff at the time of the unlawful search.” (Id. 15). Plaintiff was then “handcuffed, searched, arrested and charged…with Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device/Counterfeit,” which is a Class D felony. (Id. 17). Plaintiff alleges that the bags searched “bore the names of the respective owners,” i.e., not Plaintiff’s name, (id. 11), and that Defendants “were aware that Plaintiff did not possess [the] forgery device” and that “they lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for possession” thereof at the time of his arrest, (id.
