fails the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s pleading standards. The law does not support such a heightened pleading standard. A plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In the municipal liability context, facts tailored to the specific theory of liability are unnecessary so long as a reasonable inference can be drawn from the allegations that “municipal policy or custom directly caused the complained-of constitutional injury.” Edwards v. City of Kingston, No. 1:08-CV-803 LEKRFT, 2010 WL 3761892, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2010); see also Barnhart v. Town of Parma, 252 F.R.D. 156, 162-63 (W.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>). The amended complaint contains sufficient
holding that the complaint did not satisfy the notice pleading requirements of federal rule of civil procedure 8a because the complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured holding that the plaintiffs complaint sufficed ajlthough the factual allegations  did not readily reveal the theory for imposing municipal liability against the defendant holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed