Although the same standards for summary judgment apply, a “pro se litigant[ ] should be given special latitude in responding to [a summary judgment] motion.” Gonzalez v. Long, 889 F.Supp. 639, 642 (E.D.N.Y. 1995); accord Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 1988) (“[S]pecial solitude should be afforded pro se litigants generally, when confronted with motions for summary judgment.”); see also, e.g., Tomassi v. Nassau County, No. 15-CV-3652, 2019 WL 1440898, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019) (“Here, given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court exercises its broad discretion and conducts a review of the record to evaluate whether the facts contained in Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement are uncontroverted. The Court deems admitted only those facts which are supported by the admissible evidence and not controverted by other admissible evidence in the record.