MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff John O’Hara commenced this action against Defendants City of New York (the “City”), former District Attorney Charles J. Hynes (“DA Hynes”), Assistant District Attorney John P. O’Mara (“ADA O’Mara”), Assistant District Attorney Angelo M. Morelli (“ADA Morelli”), Assistant District Attorney Dino Amoroso (“ADA Amoroso”), District Attorney Investigator Allen Presser (“Investigator Presser”) (collectively the “DA Defendants”), Assemblyman James F. Brennan (“Assemblyman Brennan”), John Keefe (“Keefe”), Jeffrey Waite, Esq. (“Waite”) (collectively the “State Defendants”), and John W. Carroll, Esq. (“Carroll”) (together with the DA Defendants and State Defendants, the “Defendants”), to seek recompense for what he claims was a politically motivated conspiracy and baseless prosecution designed to neutralize and punish him for his political activities against the “Brooklyn Democratic Machine.” O’Hara’s complaint alleges claims for conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, retaliation, supervisory liability, selective prosecution, fabrication of evidence, and Monell claims in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York. [ECF No. 1, ("Compl.")]. On May 31, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss. [ECF No. 68]. In its ruling, the Court dismissed, inter alia, Plaintiffs third and eleventh causes of action — both premised on an alleged fabrication of evidence — as time barred. One week after the Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court decided McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019), which held that “[t]he statute of limitations for a fabricated-evidence claim…does not begin to run until the criminal proceedings against the defendant (i.e., the §1983 plaintiff) have terminated in his favor.” 139 S. Ct. at 2154-55. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to reconsider its prior dismissal and permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing on two issues: (1) the effect of McDonough on Plaintiffs fabricated-evidence claims, if any; and (2) the merits of Plaintiffs fabricated-evidence claims. [ECF No. 99]. The Court has now considered the parties’ supplemental briefing. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs fabrication of evidence claims are DENIED. BACKGROUND Although the Court set forth a detailed factual background in its prior Memorandum and Order on Defendants’ motions to dismiss, see [ECF No. 68], the Court believes that a restatement of it would be helpful. The Parties O’Hara is an attorney, a registered Democrat, and was a political activist in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1989, he supported DA Hynes in Hynes’ campaign for the Office of Kings County District Attorney (“KCDA”). Compl. at 24. DA Hynes was in office from 1989 until 2013, when he lost reelection to District Attorney Kenneth P. Thompson (“DA Thompson”). As part of his campaign, DA Thompson highlighted certain abuses during DA Hynes’ tenure, including using his office to prosecute O’Hara for election fraud — the prosecution that underlies this civil action. Id. at 258. On January 29, 2019, DA Hynes died; his wife, as administrator of his estate, was subsequently substituted in as a party. [ECF Nos. 57, 87]. ADA O’Mara, ADA Morelli, and ADA Amoroso were all employed by the KCDA as Assistant District Attorneys while DA Hynes was in office. Compl. at
9-11. Investigator Presser was also employed by the KCDA during that period. Id. at 12. Assemblyman Brennan was a member of the New York State Assembly; Carroll was his attorney and Keefe was his Chief of Staff. Id. at
