MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Nathaniel Newson (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law against Defendant, the City of New York (the “City”), based on the alleged misconduct of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) and the Queens County District Attorney’s Office (“QCDA”). The legal theories underlying Plaintiff’s §1983 claims are difficult to parse; however, their basic thrust is that the NYPD and QCDA unconstitutionally withheld material exculpatory evidence from him. His state law causes of action sound in false arrest, malicious prosecution, and negligent training and supervision. The City moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s request that he be permitted to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) is granted in part. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the district court must accept the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Empire Merchants, LLC v. Reliable Churchill LLLP, 902 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2018). Although materials extrinsic to the complaint may not generally be considered, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), the court may “take judicial notice” of “public records,” such as prior judicial proceedings, “to establish their existence and legal effect.” Fine v. ESPN, Inc., 11 F.Supp.3d 209, 223 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). BACKGROUND The following facts derive from the amended complaint (Am. Compl., ECF No. 12). On August 5, 2010, Damian Champell (“Champell”) was shot multiple times while sitting in a black 2004 BMW in Queens, New York. (Am. Compl. 11). He initially survived the shooting, but after being transported to Jamaica Hospital he was pronounced dead. (Id. 12). The NYPD recovered eight 9 mm shell casings from the murder scene: five from the street and three from inside the vehicle. (Id.
20-21). Plaintiff was not present at the scene of the murder when it occurred, but went there when he heard gunshots. (Id.
