121:18-25, 122:1-5.) But Clive refused. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 52; C. Dep. at 122:14-25.) Instead, Clive was treated for his blood pressure while Yolanda waited. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 53; Y. Dep. at 65:10-15; C. Dep. at 124:6-21.) B. Procedural History Plaintiffs initiated this action on July 5, 2011 by filing the Complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) The Complaint was brought against the 42nd Precinct of the New York Police Department and focused on the towing of the van and on Clive’s close encounter with the psychiatric unit. (Id.) Because the 42nd Precinct is not a suable entity, the Court dismissed the case against that defendant and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. (Doc. No. 4); cf. Toliver v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Corr., No. 10 Civ. 822(RJS)(JCF), 2013 WL 3779125, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on
holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action recognizing the time honored practice of applying new york city rates in calculating attorneys fees throughout the southern district of new york including in counties north of the city holding that new york city agencies cannot be sued holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership