The People of the State of New York v. James J. Carpenter, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant, who is proceeding pro se, obtained a motion schedule on January 23, 2026, and thereafter filed with this Court a two-page document entitled "Notice and Demand for Discovery." The document does not contain a notice of motion nor does it contain either an affidavit in support or an affirmation in support that complies with CPLR 2106. Aside from the ninth and final paragraph, Defendant does not make any decipherable demand for relief. In the ninth paragraph, Defendant demands various items of discovery. Accordingly, this Court will liberally construe Defendant's document as a motion for discovery under CPL Article 245. See People v. Mebuin, 158 AD3d 121 (1st Dept 2017). Furthermore, since the People have already certified their compliance with their initial discovery obligations, the Court will treat the motion as a challenge to the sufficiency of the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC"). As set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.

In determining this motion, the Court read and considered the court file and the following:

Defendant's Notice and Demand for Discovery, dated September 18, 2025 (and filed with this Court on January 23, 2026)  ¹ (hereinafter "Defendant's Motion");

Affirmation of ADA Erin Gisolfi in Opposition, dated February 13, 2026, and the Exhibits annexed thereto (hereinafter "People's Response");

Defendant's Reply, entitled Affirmation in Opposition to Affirmation in Opposition, dated September 18, 2026 (hereinafter, "Defendant's Reply").²

Through his motion, Defendant seeks the following: (1) a verified Criminal complaint; (2) names and any and all statements of witnesses that will be used at trial; (3) certified copies of Oaths of Office, Surety Bond information, and delegations of authority for various current and former Yonkers City Court Judges and any "Future Judges", DA Cacace and ADA Chemick and "Any other Past, Present or Future Prosecutors", various police officers and court officers, and the Clerk of the Court; and (4) the "requests made on the June 17, 2025 appearance before the Court."

The People responded that Defendant has already been provided the first two categories of requests, the third category is not within the scope of CPL 245.20(1), and that because Defendant did not identify in his papers what specific requests he made on June 17, 2025, they are unable to specifically respond, but maintain that they properly certified their compliance with their initial discovery obligations.

In his reply, Defendant does not deny that he was already provided the verified complaint, witness list, and witness statements. Nor does Defendant offer any theory by which oaths of office, surety bonds, or delegations of authority for various judges, prosecutors, officers, and the clerk of the court fall within the scope of initial discovery required by CPL 245.20(1). Similarly, Defendant does not provide the transcript of the proceedings on June 17, 2025 or explicate whether the items he claims he requested that day are the same or different from the items he identifies in paragraph nine of his motion. Instead, Defendant requests that the People's response be stricken because he asserts that it does not have an "authentic signature" of either ADA Gisolfi or DA Cacace.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

This matter is currently pending in White Plains City Court upon a transfer from Yonkers City Court.³ On February 11, 2025, Defendant, pro se, was arraigned in Yonkers City Court on the charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (PL 195.05) and Disorderly Conduct (PL 240.20[7]). At that time, he was provided a copy of the accusatory instrument, which was a misdemeanor information that was signed and verified in accordance with CPL section 100.30(1)(d).

Thereafter, the People provided Defendant discovery, pursuant to CPL 245.20(1), and on May 14, 2025, the People filed a COC with the Court, which listed all of the discovery that had been tendered to Defendant and included an addendum that provided additional discovery. In response to CPL 240.20(1)(c) and (d), the addendum identified all witnesses to the matter (civilian and/or law enforcement) and indicated the three individuals that the People "may call to testify." Within their COC, the People certified "that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiry to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, except for those items and information that are the subject of an order pursuant to CPL 245.70, the People have disclosed and made available to defendant all known material and information subject to discovery, which material and information is identified and/or attached in the accompanying Disclosure Index and Discovery Addendum." See Exhibit 2 of the People's Response.⁴

Pursuant to CPL 245.20(1), "[t]he prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control." It goes on to provide a non-exhaustive list of twenty-one categories of discoverable information. When interpreting what is required to be disclosed under CPL 245.20(1), there is a presumption in favor of disclosure. See CPL 245.20(7). It is the prosecutor's duty to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under [CPL 245.20(1)] and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control." CPL 245.20(2). Items possessed by New York state or local police or law enforcement agencies are deemed to be in the People's possession. Id. The prosecutor is not required, however, to subpoena materials that defendant may also subpoena. Id.

Once the prosecution provides the discovery required by CPL 245.20(1), excepting discovery that is lost or destroyed or subject to a protective order, the prosecutor shall file a certificate of compliance under CPL 245.50(1). At the time the People's COC in this matter was filed, the People were required to identify the discovery provided and certify that "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available to defendant all known material and information subject to discovery." CPL 245.50(1). Although CPL 245.50(1) specifies that "[n]o adverse consequence to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances," CPL 245.80 permits for appropriate discovery sanctions where warranted. As the law existed in May 2025, if a party believed that a COC was deficient, they were required to "notify or alert the opposing party as soon as practicable." CPL 245.50(4)(b). Further, as the law existed in May 2025, challenges to a COC were required to be addressed by motion filed "as soon as practicable." CPL 245.20(4)(a) and (c).⁵

The Court of Appeals clarified in People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 (2023), that a valid COC is one that is filed after the People have made reasonable and diligent efforts to satisfy CPL 245.20(1). Diligence is determined on a case-by-case basis, and belated disclosures do not necessarily invalidate a COC. Id. "There is no rule of 'strict liability'; that is, the statute does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecutor.' On the other hand, the plain terms of the statute make clear that while good faith is required, it is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence." Id. The Court also recognized that while the factors in determining diligence may vary from case to case, courts should consider, among other things:

the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor's office to comply with the statutory requirements, the volume of discovery provided and outstanding, the complexity of the case, how obvious any missing material would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery.

Id.

Applying the above to the instant matter, the Court finds the People's COC to be valid. As the People assert and Defendant does not dispute, Defendant was provided the verified Criminal Complaint at arraignments, and he also received witness names and statements in discovery prior to the filing of the COC. Accordingly, Defendant's request for items that were provided prior to the filing of the May 2025 COC is moot and does not establish a basis to invalidate the COC. Further, although Defendant references a list of items he requested in court on June 17, 2025, he did not identify those items in his original papers or on reply. It appears that the June requests may be identical to the demand in paragraph nine of Defendant's original papers, given that he indicates that he is demanding these items "again." See Defendant's Motion, dated Sept. 18, 2025, p. 2. To the extent Defendant is referencing materials other than those specifically listed in paragraph nine of his motion, his motion is denied. A COC is not invalidated by unsupported claims that unidentified materials have not been disclosed.

Finally, the oaths of office, surety bonds, and delegations of authority for judges, prosecutors, officers and the court clerk do not fit into any of the twenty-one categories of discovery contained in CPL 245.20(1). Simply put, they do not relate to the "subject matter of the case." The materials do not appear to be relevant to the offenses charged, nor has Defendant proffered a basis for how they would be relevant to a defense. Accordingly, they were not required to be obtained and disclosed prior to the People filing a valid COC, and there is no basis to order their disclosure as additional discovery at this juncture.

In sum, Defendant's belated motion ⁶ for discovery and challenging the People's COC is DENIED.

Dated: April 2, 2026

White Plains, NY

ORDERED:

HON. MARY JO L. BLANCHARD

CITY COURT JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

1.   In addition to the White Plains City Court stamp acknowledging receipt, the document contains another stamp from Yonkers City Court with the date of September 19, 2025. The original of the document (with just the Yonkers City Court stamp) is among the court papers transferred to White Plains City Court from Yonkers City Court.

2.   Defendant's reply was due on February 20, 2026. In his reply, which was filed late in the afternoon of March 19, 2026, Defendant "apologizes to the court for this late filing", and contends he was only "given notice of this appearance approximately a week ago." The Court will accept and consider Defendant's late filing (which, once again, is neither an affidavit nor an affirmation that conforms with the requirements of CPLR 2106). The Court notes, however, it is entirely inaccurate that Defendant only learned of either his February 20, 2026 filing deadline or the March 20, 2026 court date a mere week before March 19, 2026. Defendant was clearly and explicitly told in court on January 23, 2026 that any reply to the People's response was due by February 20, 2026, and that the matter would be on for decision in court on March 20, 2026.

3.   In an order dated October 22, 2025, the Honorable James A. McCarty, Supervising Judge of the Criminal Parts for the Ninth Judicial District, pursuant to CPL 170.15, ordered that this case be transferred from Yonkers City Court to White Plains City Court, due to the recusals of each judge of the Yonkers City Court.

4.   Defendant's request to strike the People's Response for the lack of an "authentic signature" is denied. His complaint centers on the use of an electronic signature on ADA Gisolfi's affirmation. Electronic signatures, however, are permissible and valid. See State Technology Law 304(2) ("unless specifically provided otherwise by law, an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand. The use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand"); Martin v Portexit Corp, 98 AD3d 63, 66 (1st Dept. 2012) (CPLR 2106 affirmations may be signed electronically).

5.   CPL 245.50(4) was amended effective August 7, 2025, to require a defendant challenging the sufficiency of the People's COC to file a motion within 35 days of the service of that COC, unless the defendant is provided an extension by the court upon a showing of good cause. The amendment also requires that the defendant timely confer in good faith or timely make good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party about the "specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge." CPL 245.50(4)(b).

6.   Even considering the date of the original filing in Yonkers City Court on September 19, 2025, Defendant failed to challenge the May 14, 2025 COC "as soon as practicable," and waited over four months. In light of Defendant's pro se status, the Court has once again granted Defendant some leeway and has considered the motion on its merits.

Mary Jo L. Blanchard, J.