SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Russell D. Palmer brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for claims arising from his March 26, 1999 arrest by officers of the New York City Police Department. The District Court dismissed the action with prejudice in a judgment entered on January 9, 2006. On appeal, Palmer contends that the District Court erred by denying him permission to add two additional defendants to his suit. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the issues on appeal, and the procedural history of this case.

Palmer, who was pro se in the proceedings before the District Court, moved to add two officers to his suit on January 12, 2004, well after the statute of limitations on his claims had expired. Cf. Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that the statute of limitations “[f]or § 1983 actions arising in New York ... is three years”). The District Court denied Palmer’s motion upon concluding that Palmer’s proposed amendments could not be rendered timely by relation back to his original complaint because Palmer’s failure *59to name the additional officers was not a mistake.2

Review of the record indicates that Palmer was present at a preliminary hearing of April 2, 1999, where one of the officers appeared and described both officers’ roles in Palmer’s March 26, 1999 arrest. The record further indicates that, on May 17, 1999, Palmer testified before a Grand Jury that the police officer who arrested him had searched him first, and that Officer Stuart had not been on the scene at that time of his arrest. Palmer concedes that, at the time that he prepared his complaint, he had in his possession an invoice identifying Officer Harding as the officer who had conducted the search of Palmer’s person. For these reasons, it is clear that Palmer was in a position to know the names and relevant actions of both officers before August 18, 2001 — the date on which he signed his original complaint. Under our case law, this knowledge defeats any claim of mistake. See, e.g., Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 705 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that, where a plaintiff “knew the identities” of the defendants she proposed to add to her complaint, “her failure to [sue] them in the original complaint, in light of her obvious knowledge[,] ... must be considered a matter of choice, not mistake”); accord Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court was correct to deny Palmer’s motion to amend his complaint.3

Having considered all of Palmer’s arguments and found them to be without merit, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.