According to Plaintiff, this file shows that the KCDA conducted an investigation into Plaintiffs affairs during his New York state perjury case and refused to disclose the results to Plaintiff. Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff argues that this file constitutes new evidence of a Brady violation, demonstrating that the perjury prosecution was conducted in bad faith and justifying reconsideration of the Court’s November 30, 2015 Decision and Order. Id. at 13. Defendants counter that Plaintiffs arguments are a naked attempt to re-litigate Defendants’ motion to dismiss, noting that Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on argu- merits made in his brief in opposition to that motion. Opp. at 10. Defendants argue that the Second Department, i 455-56, 2015 WL 5569021, at *25 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (Brodie, J.) (<HOLDING>)). Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has
holding the fact that officers belief proved to be mistaken does not negate a finding of probable cause holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint holding that a suspects ability to proffer an innocent explanation for the facts does not negate probable cause holding that the dismissal of an indictment did not negate the presumption of probable cause holding under new york law that a grand jury indictment does not create a presumption of probable cause for false arrest claims