see also Nimkoff v. Dollhausen, 751 F.Supp.2d 455, 463 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (“[T]he fact finder must consider the totality of the circumstances, including ‘the crime committed, its severity, the threat of danger to the officer and society, and whether the suspect is resisting or attempting to evade arrest.’ ” (citations omitted)). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find that excessive force was used against Plaintiff by State Defendants. 1. State Defendants State Defendants claim that Plaintiff cannot maintain an excessive force claim because removing Plaintiff from her vehicle was de minimis force, State Defendants used no more force than necessary to handcuff her, and th 2007 WL 608125, at *11 (E.D.N.Y Feb. 23, 2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Maxwell v. City of New York, 380
holding in an excessive force suit there can be no doubt that the police officer defendant was acting in his discretionary capacity when he arrested plaintiff holding that police officer could reasonably have impounded defendants vehicle either because there was no known individual immediately available to take custody of the car or because the car could have constituted a nuisance in the area in which it was parked holding that forcibly removing nonviolent plaintiff from her car could be excessive force holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force holding that officers who put decedent in handcuffs and leg restraints and placed him in a police car with his head between the front and rear seats in such a manner that decedent was unable to adequately breath did not use excessive force under the circumstances