The People of the State of New York, v. Julio Salcedo-Contreras, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant is charged with two operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (VTL § 1192.3), an unclassified misdemeanor, and three traffic infractions. In an August 28, 2026, submission, Defendant challenges the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and Statement of Readiness ("SOR"), and requests the Court invalidate them as illusory. The People oppose the motion, filing a Response dated September 16, 2026.

For the reasons set forth, the motion to invalidate the People's COC and SOR is DENIED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

New York State Police ("NYSP") troopers arrested Defendant on March 22, 2026, and charged him with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (VTL § 1192.3), an unclassified misdemeanor, and three traffic infractions.

By way of appearance ticket, the Town of Clarkstown Justice Court arraigned Defendant on April 29, 2026, and adjourned the case to May 27, 2026, for the People to provide discovery and file and serve a COC. On May 27, 2026, the People filed and served a COC and SOR and Defendant reserved his right under CPL § 30.30 (5)(a) to contest the validity of the COC and SOR. The Court adjourned the case to June 24, 2026, for the COC/SOR inquiry. On June 24, 2026, the Court conducted the COC/SOR inquiry, reserved decision on the inquiry, and adjourned the case to July 20, 2026. On July 20, 2026, the Court set a motion schedule, including any motion contesting the People's COC/SOR, as follows: Defendant's motion due by August 10, 2026, the People's Response due by August 24, 2026, and Defendant's Reply due by August 31, 2026. The Court adjourned the case to September 14, 2026, for decision and control.

On August 28, 2026, Defendant filed a "Notice Contesting Certificate of Compliance, Objecting to Trial Readiness, and Requesting an Inquiry Pursuant to CPL §§ 245.50 (1), 245.50 (3), 30.30 (5), and 30.30 (5-a)". On August 14, 2026, considering the Defendant's late filing, the Court granted the People's request to extend the due date for their Response to September 21, 2026, with Defendant's Reply, if any, due by September 28, 2026.¹ The Court adjourned the case for decision on the motion to October 16, 2026.

Defendant raised two challenges to the People's COC: (1) that the People failed to provide full exculpatory and impeachment material as required by CPL § 245.20 (1)(k) as to arresting Trooper Justin Vides-Lasso ("Vides-Lasso"), and (2) the People did not provide body-worn camera ("BWC") footage as to unidentified NYSP trooper(s) who may have been at the scene of Defendant's arrest. The People respond that Defendant's motion is procedurally defective because: (1) Defendant's submission was not in a proper motion format accompanied by a sworn affidavit, (2) Defendant's submission was untimely as it was not filed within 35 days of the filing and service of People's COC as required by CPL § 245.50 (4)(c), and (3) Defendant did not submit an affirmation that he has "timely conferred" with the People regarding potentially missing discovery as required by CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). The People also respond that they exercised the requisite due diligence and made reasonable inquiries as to the existence of all discovery material.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Under CPL § 245.20 (1), the People's initial disclosure obligations extend to 21 enumerated categories of discoverable material along with a catch-all provision, CPL § 245.20 (1)(v), that further requires disclosure of "any other material or information relevant to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in the instant case or a defense thererto that are not designated in paragraphs (a) through (u) of this subdivision." Additionally, all items and information related to the prosecution in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed in possession of the prosecution, CPL § 245.20 (2), and the prosecution must "ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police and other investigative personnel and his or her office ." CPL § 245.55 (1).

Unless the Court makes an "individualized finding of special circumstances"² the People shall not be deemed ready for trial until they have filed a proper COC pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (1). People v. Bay, 41 NY2d 200, 209-210 (2023); CPL § 245.50 (3). Under CPL § 245.50 (1), the key question in determining if the People filed a proper and valid COC is whether the prosecution has "exercise[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of information subject to discovery." CPL § 245.50 (1);Bay, supra at 211; see also CPL § 245.20 (2). "Due diligence" is a flexible standard that requires the People "to make reasonable efforts" to comply with the statutory directives. Bay, supra at 211. Should a defendant challenge the validity of a COC and SOR, the People bear the burden of establishing that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC despite a belated or missing disclosure. Id. at 213; People v. Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132(A) (App. Term, 2d Dept. 9 & 10 Jud. Dist. 2022). In assessing the People's due diligence to meet their disclosure obligations, the court must look at the totality of the People's efforts to comply with Article 245, rather than assess their efforts item by item. CPL § 245.50 (5). The court's determination shall be based upon consideration of all relevant factors, and no one factor shall be determinative. CPL § 245.50 (5)(b). The relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) the efforts made by the People to comply with the statutory requirements;

(2) the volume of the discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding;

(3) the complexity of the case;

(4) whether the People knew that the belatedly disclosed or missing material existed;

(5) the explanation for any discovery lapse;

(6) the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery;

(7) whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied;

(8) whether the omission was corrected;

(9) whether the People self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention;

(10) whether the People's delayed disclosure of disclosure was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case and prepare for trial.

Whether the People made reasonable efforts and exercised due diligence "is fundamentally case-specific" and "will turn of the circumstances presented." Bay, supra at 212. Notably, subsequent disclosure and a supplemental COC cannot cure the prosecution's failure to exercise due diligence before its initial COC. If due diligence is not established, the COC "should be deemed improper [and] the readiness statement stricken as illusory." Id. at 213; see also People v. Infinite, ___Misc.3d___, 2026 WL 2834210 (Crim. Ct., NY Co. 2026).

A defense challenge to the validity of a COC must be by motion within 35 days of service of the certificate unless an extension has been granted by the court. CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). Further, the challenge must be accompanied by an affirmation that, after the COC was filed, the defense timely conferred with the People in good faith efforts about the specific basis for the challenge, that the efforts to obtain missing discovery or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached. CPL § 245.50(4)(c).

III. VALIDITY OF THE PEOPLE'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND STATEMENT OF READINESS

While the People's position that Defendant did not file the required notice of motion, motion format and affirmation contesting the People's COC and SOR has merit, for the purpose of this decision the Court accepts Defendant's submission as a challenging motion.

A. Timeliness and Good Faith Consultation

The 35-day time frame for Defendant to file a motion challenging the validity of the COC began to run from the service of the COC in Court on May 27, 2026. CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). The court may extend the 35-day limit "[upon] request" and "for good cause shown," but the statute specifies that "[a] request for the extension shall be made before the expiration of the thirty-five days." CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). Thus, the filing of the motion challenging the validity of the COC 93 days later on August 29, 2026, was untimely. Further, the Defendant failed to establish that he made any efforts to timely confer with the People about his challenge to the validity of the COC. Additionally, the defense motion did not include a necessary affirmation establishing that defense timely conferred with the prosecution. CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). Accordingly, Defendant's motion challenging the People's COC and discovery compliance in DENIED as untimely and procedurally barred pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). Infinite, supra; People v. Paulino, 88 Misc 3d 1262(A)(Crim. Ct., NY Co. 2026); People v. Minor, 88 Misc 3d 1227(A)(Crim. Ct., NY Co. 2026); see also People v Miguel, 87 Misc 3d 1247(A)(Crim. Ct, NY Co. 2025)(defense failed to include an affirmation establishing timely conferral with the prosecution before filing his challenge to the People's COC). Nevertheless, as discussed below, the court considers the merits of Defendant's motion and declines to invalidate the COC on the merits.

B. Discovery Purported to be Outstanding

Defendant asserts that the People's COC is invalid because although the prosecution provided information as to pending disciplinary actions against Vides-Lasso for failure to report a property damage auto accident (PDAA) and a to failure to activate his body-worn camera, Defendant was not provided with full documentation for those disciplinary actions. Defendant also asserts that he has not been provided with BWC footage for one or more NYS troopers who arrived at the scene of Defendant's stop and arrest.

(1) Police Disciplinary Records

CPL § 245.20 (1)(k)(iv) requires the prosecutor to automatically disclose" [a]ll evidence that relate to the subject matter of the case, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in the case, that tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness." The People provided a listing of Vides-Lasso's pending disciplinary charges, but not the underlying documents because the NYSP, pursuant to policy, declined to provide them.

Nothing in CPL § 245.20 (1)(k)(iv) requires the People to produce every document just because "it provides additional information not in other impeachment material." People v. Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325, 344-345 (2025). Moreover, the underlying disciplinary records must "relate to the subject matter of the case," a phrase that has produced contradictory determinations by the courts. Here, although the People did not provide Defendant with underlying disciplinary records, given the circumstances of this case, where the officers' disciplinary charges are from prior incidents and do not have any bearing on the subject matter of the case at hand, and the charges themselves if sustained do not relate to Vido-Lasso's credibility, the People exercised the requisite due diligence and made reasonable inquires to satisfy their obligations under CPL article 245. People v. Hespinobarros, 245 AD3d 826 (2d Dept. 2026); compare People v. Henderson, 237 AD3d 853, 854 (2d Dept. 2025) and People v. Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158 (2d Dept. 2024) with People v. Coley, 240 AD3d 122, 131-138 (2d Dept. 2025).

(2) Body-Worn Camera Footage

As to any potentially missing BWC footage, the Court finds that given the extensive discovery provided, including three different BWC recordings provided by the NYSP, the People exercised the required due diligence and made reasonable inquiries as to the existence of BWC footage. However, the Court directs the People to make additional inquiries as to the existence of additional BWC footage and to provide it to Defendant if such footage is located. If no such footage exists, the People are directed to provide that finding in writing to the Court and Defendant. These directives are required to be completed within two weeks of the date of this decision.

C. Validity of Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness

Having examined the totality of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations and viewing the efforts holistically and weighing the relevant factors set forth in CPL § 245.50 (5), the Court finds the People exercised due diligence, made reasonable inquiries, and acted in good faith before filing their COC. See Bay, supra at 211-212; see also, People v. Grandoit, 242 AD3d 1298 (2d Dept. 2025)(in light of extensive discovery provided, failure to provide one BWC recording did not invalidate the People's COC); People v. Baigorria, 87 Misc 3d 1238(A)(Crim.Ct., NY Co. 2025). Thus, the People's SOR is also valid.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: October 5, 2026

New City, New York

HON. MICHAEL E. BONGIORNO

Clarkstown Justice

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant did not file a Reply.

2.   The People made no special circumstances application in his case.

Michael E. Bongirono, J.