MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Nancy Wong filed the complaint in this action on May 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. Wong brings constitutional claims for false arrest and deliberate indifference to her medical needs. Defendants the City of New York (the “City”), Alexander Delgiorno, and Evan Mele have moved, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 48.For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.Background1On May 16, 2014, Wong accompanied her husband, Wayne Wong (“Wayne”), to the New York State Insurance Fund (“NYSIF”) offices located at 199 Church Street in Manhattan, where he worked on the sixth floor. Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”), Dkt. No. 48-2 at 1-2. After spending close to an hour and a half in Wayne’s office, Wong left in search of water, taking the elevator to a higher floor. Id. at 3-4. While waiting for her return elevator, Wong encountered Ying Hong Wang, an NYSIF employee. Id. at 4-5. It is undisputed that Wong and Wang, while inside the elevator, fought each other. The fight was captured by surveillance cameras. Id. at 6-7. When the elevator arrived at the sixth floor, Wang fled from Wong, darting into the nearby office of another NYSIF employee, Bhiktrabhai Patel. Id. at 8-9. The stories differ thereafter. Defendants claim that Wong sought to and did renew the fight with Wang, only stopping when Patel separated them. Id. at 10-12. As Wong tells it, however, “there was no second physical altercation,” and the fight ended when “the parties entered Patel’s office, who saw the tail end of the event.” Dkt. No. 50 at 11;2 see also Dkt. No. 50-3 (Ex. B-Delgiorno Dep. Tr.) at 23-24, 56-58, 60.Regardless of why the fighting subsided, the parties agree that building security personnel arrived; that, close to noon, Officers Delgiorno and Mele received and responded to a radio report of the incident; and that the two officers were escorted by security to the sixth floor. SMF at 13-16. In the next scene, defendants contend, Wang was “sitting in a chair crying, holding her head, surrounded by hair on the floor.” Id. at 17. Wong offers an interesting dual account of that scene. She claims that any hair on the floor belonged to her and that Wang was not surrounded by hair at all. Dkt. No. 50 at 17.The parties go on to agree that there was blood on the floor and that Wang told Officers Delgiorno and Mele “that as she was waiting for an elevator, plaintiff attacked her.” SMF at 18-19. In addition, Wang told Officer Delgiorno that Wong pulled out Wang’s hair, scratched her face, shoved her, and bit her. Id. at 20. It is also uncontested that Wang had “visible lacerations” on her face and finger. Id. at 21. Similarly, Wong had lacerations to her face and a red eye. Id. at 22. Nor does anyone challenge the account of the officers calling for an ambulance for both women. Id. at 23. Plaintiff notes, though, that she declined the offer, wanting Wayne to take her to the hospital instead. Dkt. No. 50 at 24.At this preliminary stage of their response, the two officers called their supervisor, Sergeant Rodriguez, to the scene, SMF at 27, and there appears to be no disagreement on that, or that Wong sought, at that time, to advise at least one officer of her claim that she did not initiate the altercation. Id. at 28; Dkt. No. 50 at 28. Contrarily, the officers contend that Wong did not respond to their questions or “speak to them directly.” SMF at 26; Dkt. No. 50 at 26. Wong disputes this and claims that she told the officers that Wang was the aggressor, pointing to a state court notice of oral statement relating to a statement that she made to Officer Delgiorno. Dkt. No. 50 at 26; Dkt. No. 50-5 at 4.Officer Delgiorno then took a statement from Patel, who relayed that Wang was running from Wong, that he saw “plaintiff lunge at Ms. Wang and pull Ms. Wang’s hair,” and, that, from what he saw, Wong was the aggressor. SMF at 29-32. Wong challenges the accuracy of this statement, denying that Patel mentioned anything to Officer Delgiorno about her pulling Wang’s hair. Dkt. No. 50 at 31.With this factual predicate, the complaint of a potential victim and the confirmatory observation of a bystander, Officers Delgiorno and Mele arrested Wong. SMF at 33. The officers were aware at the time of the arrest that there was a video surveillance system that may have captured some or all of the incident and, while the parties squabble about what conversation the arresting officers had about it, there is no dispute that the officers did not attempt to secure access to the system and dig out whatever images of the incident it may have contained. Id. at 34-36. Officer Delgiorno processed Wong’s arrest at the First Precinct, making a report to the prosecutors at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office that included a notification that a video surveillance system, believed to be operational, might have preserved images essential to the case. Id. at 39; Dkt. Nos. 48-8, 48-9 (Ex. 5-Delgiorno Dep. Tr.) at 131-32, 136. As part of the preparation of the People’s case, Wang, whom the officers had identified at the scene as the victim, trekked to the precinct to have her injuries photographed. SMF at 40.During her arrest processing at the precinct, Wong claims that she “requested her diabetes and hypertension medication and medical treatment at least 20 times, but was ignored” by the officers for the nine hours she was in their custody, Dkt. No. 50 at 24, and that despite their non-response, she did so in a voice loud enough that Officers Delgiorno and Mele had to have heard her. Id. at 43; Dkt. No. 50-2 (Ex. A-Wong Dep. Tr.) at 73 (“15, 20 times.”). The officers flat out denied hearing any of Wong’s shouted requests for medication and, quite off the point, offer that they are not permitted to administer medications to an arrestee and are required to refer any such requests to EMS. SMF at 45. As noted previously, Wong declined the officers’ request to transport her to the hospital, Dkt. No. 50 at 24, but asserts that defendants could have called for medical assistance on their own when she asked for it at the precinct. Id. at 45.At the same time, defendants do not contest how Wong describes her subjective feeling about her condition; or that Wong feared a diabetic coma, or feeling faint, or that she might vomit. SMF at 46-50. They stress, though, that none of those physical conditions came to pass-that is, she did not fall into a diabetic coma or faint or vomit. Id. In similar fashion, Wong complains that, as the processing continued, pus developed in her eye, but the officers deny observing any such condition. Id. at
51, 53.At any rate, a little more than eight hours after she had been placed under arrest, Wong was transported to Bellevue Hospital. Id. at 54. At Bellevue, Wong’s condition was described as stable, her medications for diabetes and high blood pressure were dispensed to her, and her concerns were addressed by an ophthalmologist. Id. at
