had drunk multiple cups of coffee. Further suggesting a conspiracy, Stephens left the polygraph room several times to discuss the results of the interrogation with the Peekskill officers, (Deskovic 56.1 ¶ 55; Pis.’ Opp’n Ex. 34, at 1025; Pis.’ Opp’n Ex. 35, at 247, 262, 270-71), and Stephens testified during the suppression hearing that he called in McIntyre to talk to Deskovic after the polygraph examination concluded, because Stephens felt that the interview was “no longer productive,” and thought that changing the interrogator could help, (Pis.’ Opp’n Ex. 35, at 288-90). Thus, this is not a case where evidence shows that the defendants merely worked together, or communicated generally with each other. See Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 791-92 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114-15 (2d
holding that a letter describing discussions between board members did not support conclusion that the three members whom a jury could find individually acted with racial animus had an understanding among themselves to do so recognizing that floor statements by a few members do not necessarily reflect the understanding of the entire congress recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding board members wifes occasional employment as an occupational therapist with hospital whose application for a park ing garage was pending before the board could not reasonably be viewed as improperly influencing board members judgment holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did