SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Gerald Coderre appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants City of Wallingford and Police Officers Gabriel Garcia and Mark DiCoeco on Coderre’s federal and state law claims related to his arrest for larceny in connection with the theft of a vacuum cleaner from a Kohl’s store in Wallingford, Connecticut, on February 19, 2007. We review an award of summary judgment de novo and will affirm only if the record, viewed in favor of the non-moving party, shows no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party’s entitlement to judgment ás a matter of law. See Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189, 193-94 (2d Cir. 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which, we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

In urging vacatur, Coderre argues that defendants arrested him without the requisite probable cause because the affidavit supporting his arrest warrant was infected by material misstatements and omissions. To pursue such a claim, Coderre had to show that the alleged misstatements and omissions were “designed to mislead” or “made in reckless disregard of whether [they] would mislead.” ’ United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon de novo review, we reach the same conclusion as the district court: “There is no plausible inference that any of these alleged misrepresentations or omissions were made deliberately or recklessly.” Coderre v. City of Wallingford, No. 3:08-cv-00959, 2015 WL 4774391, at *5 (D. Conn. Aug. 13, 2015).

In any event, Coderre’s claims fail under the “corrected affidavit” doctrine because a hypothetical warrant affidavit, deleting the purported misstatements and including the challenged omissions, would not affect *400 the probable cause determination. See Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007).

A corrected affidavit would have advised the judicial officer that (1) the information Officer Garcia received from the Plainville Police pertained to one other vacuum cleaner larceny occurring at a Kohl’s store two days before the reported Wallingford larceny and to which Co-derre’s green GMC pickup truck had been linked. While this report did not confirm Coderre’s parole officer’s statement that Coderre was under investigation for multiple Kohl’s larcenies, neither did it undermine it, addressing only the one incident. But even as to the one larceny, the corrected information provided a close temporal link between Coderre’s involvement in a Plainview theft and the similar theft in Wallingford. A corrected affidavit would also state that (2) Coderre’s goatee, as depicted in a DMV photograph, was light-to-reddish brown and not closely cut, whereas the surveillance video of the Wallingford thief showed him with a brown/black close-cropped goatee; (3) Kohl’s cashier Sandra Ivan, • a witness to the Wallingford- crime, could not provide a description of the robbery and was not shown a photospread; and (4) Garcia ran Coderre’s criminal history sometime after February 19, 2007, and reviewed it on March 12, 2007.

Even when these facts are viewed most favorably to Coderre, they cannot undermine the probable cause clearly established by the following information: (1) Co-derre — through his car — was already linked to the theft of a vacuum cleaner in Plainville two days before the theft of a vacuum cleaner in Wallingford; (2) there is a striking similarity between Coderre’s DMV photograph and the thief depicted on the Wallingford surveillance video — indeed, despite the modest color and length differences, any reasonable person would conclude, as the district court did and as our own review confirms, that “[t]hey look like the same person,” Coderre v. City of Wallingford, 2015 WL 4774391, at *5. While these two facts might alone admit a finding of probable cause to arrest Coderre, see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d at 156-57, that conclusion is only reinforced by the corrected affidavit’s report that (3) Coderre had been arrested and convicted for various larcenies, see Stansbury v. Wertman, 721 F.3d 84, 94 (2d Cir. 2013) (concluding that officer had probable cause to effect arrest where, inter alia, arrestee had “previous arrest for a similar crime”); and (4) Coderre had failed to report to his parole officer in the two weeks prior to March 12, 2007, and Garcia had not been able to reach him at his parole contact number, see generally United States v. Al-Sadawi, 432 F.3d 419, 425 (2d Cir. 2005) (recognizing that flight immediately after crime can be evidence of consciousness of guilt of that crime).

On this record, Coderre’s argument that the corrected affidavit would not demonstrate probable cause fails as a matter of law. 1 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendants on both the federal and state law claims of false arrest.

*401 We also affirm the judgment for defendants on Coderre’s' claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Washington v. Blackmore, 986 A.2d 356, 361, 119 ConmApp. 218, 224 (2010) (holding that claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotion distress fail as matter of law where challenged arrest is supported by probable cause).

We have considered Coderre’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. We, therefore, AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.