DECISION & ORDER Takisha Reid (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the City of New York (the “City”), New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Officer Gregory Howard (“Howard”), and John and Jane Does 1-5 (the “John Doe Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”), based on allegations that Howard sexually assaulted her while she was serving under Howard’s supervision as a confidential informant for the NYPD.1 Plaintiff brings claims against Howard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment unlawful seizure and substantive due process rights (First Cause of Action), and under state common law for committing assault and battery (Fifth Cause of Action) and intentionally and negligently inflicting distress (Seventh Cause of Action); she also asserts respondeat superior liability (Eleventh Cause of Action) against the City for Howard’s state law torts.2 (See “Compl.,” Dkt. 1.) Both Howard and the City filed Motions for Summary Judgment. (“City’s Motion,” Dkt. 75; “Howard’s Motion,” Dkt. 81.) The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 58.) For the reasons stated herein, Howard’s Motion is denied and the City’s Motion is granted. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must resolve all ambiguities and credit all factual inferences that could rationally be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 202 (2d Cir. 2007). The following facts are drawn from the statements of undisputed facts submitted by the parties pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Plaintiff SOUF”), Dkt. 83; Howard’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Howard SOUF”), Dkt. 81-8; City’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“City SOUF”), Dkt. 78) and from materials incorporated by reference into these statements, including the transcripts of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony (“Reid Tr.,” Dkt. 81-6) and Howard’s deposition testimony (“Howard Tr.,” Dkt. 81-7). Plaintiff first met Howard in October 2017, when she went to the precinct in Staten Island where he worked as an NYPD officer to make a complaint against a man who assaulted her son. (Howard SOUF 15; Reid Tr. at 26:11-27:20.) After Plaintiff told him that she was aware of a gun in her residence, Howard registered her as a confidential informant for the NYPD. (City SOUF 1; Howard SOUF 16; Plaintiff SOUF 3.) In that capacity, Plaintiff made two reports of guns, receiving $1,500.00 each time from “Crime Stoppers,” a unit of the NYPD. (Howard SOUF 24; Plaintiff SOUF 13.) It is undisputed that while Plaintiff was serving as an informant, Howard met with her in person multiple times. (City SOUF 4; Plaintiff SOUF 5.) Plaintiff alleges that during several of these meetings, Howard coerced her into having sex with him in his car. (See, e.g., Reid Tr. at 54:3-25.) Plaintiff testified that during the first encounter in April 2018, Howard grabbed her and kissed her when she wasn’t expecting it and that she “didn’t fight him off because [she] froze and [] was scared, and it all happened so fast”; she also noted that Howard was “trying to get [her] drunk” beforehand, that he “pushed himself” on her, and that she “couldn’t move.” (Id. at 41:1-7, 52:18-23.) She testified that during the second encounter, which occurred on May 25, 2018 at 5:00 a.m., Howard picked her up and drove her to her house without “any boxer shorts on.” (Id. at 46:8-10.) It was clear that “[h]e had been drinking all night,” and when they parked outside her house, he “put [her] head down” to perform oral sex on him in his car. (Id. at 46:10-14.) Plaintiff also mentions a third encounter without providing further details. (Id. at 45:23-25.) Plaintiff testified that after these incidents, Howard threatened to expose her if she told anyone about them, asking her how she would like it if he told people she had informed on them. (Id. at 51:10-52:1, 55:25, 67:12-21.) Plaintiff also testified that Howard told her that the NYPD “had his back.” (Id. at 67:12-21.) Howard denies making these threats. At his deposition, he initially testified that he had never had sexual relations with Plaintiff (Howard SOUF 36; Howard Tr. at 43:14-17), but he subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer further questions regarding any meetings with Plaintiff in person and whether he had sexual encounters with her. (Plaintiff SOUF 6; Howard Tr. at 43:22-47:5, 56:7-59:19.) Plaintiff filed a complaint against Howard with the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which was referred to the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) on June 9, 2018. (City SOUF
