and the two claims have identical elements. See Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 93, 335 N.E.2d 310 (1975)). Moreover, a “ § 1983 claim for false arrest, resting on the Fourth Amendment right of an individual to be free from unreasonable seizures, including arrest without probable cause own in New York law, “exists when the officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person about to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime.” Weyant, 101 F.3d at 852 (citations omitted); see Raysor v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.2d 34, 39-40 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Since the law seeks to protect citizens
holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding that an excessive force claim is governed by the fourth amendments objectively reasonable standard rather than the fourteenth amendments shock the conscience standard holding that new york law reasonable cause standard is equivalent to fourth amendments probable cause standard holding that probable cause is the appropriate standard for  3144 material witness warrants holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met