PEOPLE v. CAMERON (2025)

The defendant, Jarnel Cameron, has submitted an omnibus motion, dated September 19, 2025, seeking: inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and dismissal or reduction of the indictment; suppression of evidence; Sandoval relief, preclusion of evidence; an order invalidating the People's certificate of compliance; release pursuant to CPL § 30.30(2)(a); and leave to file further motions. The People's response, dated October 7, 2025, consents to some of the relief sought and opposes other relief. The court decides the motion as follows.

INSPECTION AND DISMISSAL OR REDUCTION

Defendant's motion to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted. The minutes reveal that a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the prosecutor instructed the grand jurors on the law. The indictment substantially conforms to the requirements set forth in CPL § 200.50. The instructions were not defective as a matter of law and the proceedings were proper. Upon inspection of the grand jury minutes and exhibits, this court found the evidence to be legally sufficient to support all the counts of the indictment. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce the indictment is denied.

In the indictment, the defendant is charged with two counts of Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law §§ 110/265.03(1)(b),(3), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 265.02[1]); Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law § 265.01[2]); Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree (Penal Law §§ 110/265.01[-b][1], Attempted Robbery in the Third Degree (Penal Law §§ 110/160.05) and Unlawful Possession of Pistol Ammunition (NYC Admin. Code § 10-131[i][3]).

The defendant, relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v Bruen, 597 US 1 (2022), also moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that New York's gun licensing requirements are unconstitutional and encroach upon his right to possess firearm under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The defendant's contentions are rejected.

The Bruen decision held that New York's requirement that applicants for a gun license first demonstrate proper cause for self-protection to obtain a gun permit violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it prevented law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in self-defense. The Bruen decision did not invalidate New York's licensing requirements to carry a firearm in public or the State's underlying gun possession statutes; it only struck down the “proper cause” or “special need” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license. The Bruen decision made clear that the Second Amendment was subject to “well defined restrictions” that govern “the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms ․” Id. at 38. Moreover, the Bruen decision “has no impact on the constitutionally of New York State's criminal possession of a weapon statutes”. (see People v Emmanuel D., 238 AD3d 1068 [2d Dept 2025]).

Here, the defendant does not claim to have sought a license to possess a firearm. He does not claim to have been wrongly denied a license to possess a firearm. In fact, the evidence before the grand jury demonstrated he did not have a license to possess a firearm. Thus, the defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionally of the New York State firearms laws. (see United States v Decastro, 682, F3d 160, 164 [2d Cir. 2012][generally, standing to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional policy is established when a plaintiff first submits to the challenged policy.]). Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on the ground that it is unconstitutional is denied.

SANDOVAL RELIEF

The defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing and, ultimately, the preclusion of evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are reminded that the disclosure of Sandoval evidence that they intend to introduce at trial shall be made in accordance with the time frame set forth in CPL § 245.10(1)(b) and 245.20(3).

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The defendant moves to suppress any physical evidence recovered from the defendant, contending that the firearm recovered was the product of an unlawful pursuit and seizure. (affirmation of defendant's attorney at 7) The People claim that the defendant does not have standing to contest the admission of the firearm recovered from the rear of 107-42 130th Street as the firearm was abandoned. The People further contend that the firearm was not recovered from the defendant or from any place in which he had an expectation of privacy. (People's Memorandum of Law at 16) This court finds that defendant's factual averment is sufficient to raise a dispute of fact regarding standing. (see People v Jose, 252 AD2d 401, 402 [1st Dept 1998].) Accordingly, a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is ordered, the scope of which will encompass the issue of standing. At the hearing, however, the defendant bears the ultimate burden of establishing standing to challenge the search of the vehicle by establishing he held a legitimate expectation of privacy therein. (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108 [1996].)

PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE

The defendant's motion to preclude any unnoticed statements or identification evidence pursuant to CPL§§ 60.45, 710.20(3) and 710.43(3) is denied. The determination of whether such evidence has been properly noticed is referred to the discretion of the hearing and trial courts before which any such evidence comes to light.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CHALLENGE

The People filed their certificate of compliance (hereinafter COC) on July 25, 2025. Following a series of email exchanges with the discovery court and the parities, a discovery conference was scheduled for August 14, 2025. Prior to the date scheduled for the discovery conference, defense counsel at 4:45 p.m. on August 11, 2025, sent the prosecutor a conferral email demanding several categories of missing discovery be produced. (see affirmation of prosecutor at 7-8, exhibits 4 and 5; affirmation of defendant's attorney at 12, ¶ 42, exhibit A) After the discovery conference, the People filed four supplemental certificates of compliance.

In papers filed on September 19, 2025, the defendant moves for an order invalidating the People's COC and statement of readiness, asserting that the People belatedly provided material and, in addition, failed to provide material requested by the defense. The defendant contends the People failed to provide any information relating to the arrest of a juvenile who was arrested contemporaneously at the same location as the defendant. The demand encompasses all arrest and investigative files associated with this juvenile, and names and contact information of any informants. The defendant also contends that the People have refused to produce all disciplinary records related to six law enforcement officers designated as potential witnesses. Moreover, the defendant contends the People failed to adequately explain their delay in producing photographs of the gun taken by Police Officer Nunez, the arresting officer.

In opposition, the People, relying on the time limits and prerequisites imposed on challenges to COCs by the recent amendments to Article 245, contend that the defendant's motion, filed more than 35 days after the People filed their COC, should be denied because defendant failed to confer in good faith, failed to file an affirmation of conferral and as untimely. The People also assert that they filed the COC in good faith after exercising due diligence. The People contend that the arrest and investigative files related the juvenile who was arrested at the same location and time as the defendant are unrelated the defendant's case; that the defendant has not made a showing that the underlying disciplinary records for the six police officers and detectives designated as witnesses are relevant to the charges filed against the defendant or the subject matter of the case, and despite the belated disclosure of five photographs, the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligation when assessed in a holistic manner, demonstrate due diligence.

Article 245 was again amended on May 9, 2025, effective on August 7, 2025, and shall apply to all criminal proceedings initiated on or before such date. (See, L. 2025, ch 56, amended Article 245 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law, signed May 9, 2025; effective August 7, 2025). Previously, the People were required to disclose “all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case ․ in their possession, custody or control ․ or persons under [their] direction or control, including, but not limited to “the twenty-one categories of information provided in 245.20(1)(a) through (1)(u). The legislative amendments to Article 245 narrowed the scope of disclosure in four categories. The categories of information amended are statements made by a defendant or co-defendant, transcripts of grand jury testimony, photographs or drawings made by any law enforcement officer or a potential witness at trial and photographs or reproductions of property made by any law enforcement officer prior to its release. The amendments limited the scope of disclosure of information “that relates to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in the instant case” (CPL § 245.20[1][a], [b], [h], [i].) The beginning language of CPL § 245.20(1) was also amended to limit the items that must be disclosed by the People to the twenty-one categories listed in this section, but added a catch-all provision, subsection (v), which requires the People to disclose “[a]ny other material and information relevant to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in the instant case or a defense thereto that are not designated in paragraphs (a) through (u) of this subdivision.” (See CPL § 245.20 [1] [v]). This added provision narrowed the scope of disclosure to “material and information relevant to the charges against the defendant” from the previous disclosure requirement of providing items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case.

Once the People have complied with the mandates of CPL § 245.20, the People are required to serve and file a certificate of compliance. Under the current and pre-August 2025 revisions to Article 245, the validity of the People's COC depends on whether the People can demonstrate good faith and due diligence in discharging their discovery obligations. (See People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-212 [2023]; CPL § 245.50[5]) The People's COC must state that “after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries and efforts to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose material and information subject to discovery,” the People have “disclosed and made known all material and information it has obtained subject to discovery” (CPL § 245.50[1]). The recent amendment now permits the People to file a COC even if certain materials or information are not disclosed as long as they “identify the items” that they are required to disclose but could not be obtained “despite the exercise of due diligence” (CPL § 245. 50[1]).

The new amendments also impose time limits and prerequisites prior to challenging a COC. Absent an applicable exception, challenges to a COC must be brought within 35 days of the filing date of the COC. Before a defendant can bring a challenge, the defense must confer with and alert the People to missing discovery. (CPL § 245.50[4][b],[c]) Thereafter, the defense may file a written challenge by motion to any discovery still in dispute within the 35 days of the filing of the People's COC. Any challenges to the People's COC must contain an affirmation by the defense that “after the filing of the [People's COC],” the defense “timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the [People] regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge” and that “efforts to obtain the missing discovery” or otherwise to resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful and that no accommodation could be reached” (CPL § 245.50[4][c]).

The Legislature also adopted in CPL § 245.50 (5) the due diligence analysis set forth in Bay, 41 NY3d at 212, along with other non-exhaustive factors that courts must consider when assessing the People's due diligence. The Bay court established in dealing with discovery compliance, “there is no rule of strict liability” (Id.) The analysis is fundamentally case-specific and will turn on the circumstances presented. (Id.) In weighing due diligence, courts must consider the “totality” of the prosecution's efforts and not focus the People's efforts on an item by item basis. (CPL § 245.50[5]). In this regard, the People bear the burden of establishing that they did, if fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC” (Id. at 213)

In addition, the People must maintain “a flow of information” between them and the law enforcement agency involved, and they have a continuing duty to disclose automatic discovery (CPL §§ 245.50, 245.60) If the People obtain additional discoverable material or information, they must file a supplemental certificate disclosing such materials or information to the defendant (CPL § 245.50[1]). In the supplemental COC, the People must identify the additional material provided and detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance. (CPL §§ 245.50 [1], [1-a]) However, the filing of a supplemental COC “shall not impact the validity of the original [COC] if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence” (CPL § 245.50[1]).

Due diligence is assessed by weighing the factors listed in CPL § 245.50[5][a] along with any other factor relevant to the analysis of due diligence. When a defendant challenges the People's certificate, a reviewing court must examine the alleged discovery lapses individually to determine whether and to what extent the People failed to meet their discovery obligations. If the reviewing court finds any discovery violations, the reviewing court must then examine the violations in the context of “the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]” to determine whether the People nevertheless “exercised due diligence and acted in good faith” in discharging their duties (CPL § 245.50[5].) In this regard, even where the People have not satisfied all of their discovery obligations, their certificate of compliance will not be invalidated where they have “exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material” (CPL § 245.50[6]; see also Bay at 211) In determining whether the People acted with due diligence, the court must consider:

[T]he efforts made by the People to comply with [their discovery obligations]; the volume of discovery material provided and the volume of discovery material outstanding; the complexity of the case; whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; whether the omission was corrected; whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and whether the prosecution's delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial.(CPL § 245.50[5][a]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 212).

The issues raised by the People and defendant are now addressed under this framework.

Sufficiency and timeliness of defendant's motion

The police files for the juvenile

Law Enforcement Disciplinary Records

The defendant contends he is entitled the following disciplinary records and relies primarily on People v Coley, 240 AD3d 122 (2d Dept 2025):

1. The complete CCRB and IAB files for Police Officer Donato, Detective Gillespie and Sgt. Siraco.

2. The complete IAB files for Detectives Hametz, Dorrejo and Steigerwald.

As for these police officer and detectives, the People stated that the CCRB material shared with the defense were all of the CCRB material in the People's possession.

2. IAB log 23-37895 material pertaining to Detective DaSilva, including the index sheet, closing report, attachments, Command Discipline Election Report, unredacted log, and DAO (Department Advocate Office) materials.

3. IAB log 13-19014 pertaining to Detective Didonato, including the index sheet, closing report, attachments, Command Discipline Election Report, unredacted log, and DAO (Department Advocate Office) material.

The People assert they shared these materials with the defense. (See affirmation of prosecutor at 12-13) Relying on the holdings in People v Johnson, 218, AD3d 1347 (4th Dept 2023), People v McCarty, 221 AD3d 1360 (3d Dept 2023) and People v Jawad, 84 Misc 3d 31 (App. Term 2d, 11th, and 13th Jud. Dists. 2024), the People assert these materials are not within the scope of automatic discovery because they do not relate to the subject matter of the case. (affirmation of prosecutor at 43-44) This court agrees. In Coley, two police officers responded to a call of men fighting. When they arrived at the location, the defendant and 4 others were in a vehicle. After one of the defendants got out of the car, Lt. Ruiz, one of the officers who responded, allegedly saw a loaded weapon on the floor directly below the driver seat. Coley and the other individuals were arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon based on the testimony of Lt. Ruiz. In a prior case. Lt. Ruiz (then Sgt. Ruiz) testified at a suppression hearing. Lt. Ruiz testified that he could read the numbers and the name on a credit card that was on the center console of a car while standing outside the car. He further stated that he could see that the fourth to last digit on the card was altered. On appeal, the court after exercising its power to conduct an independent factual review, found the testimony of Lt. Ruiz incredible. In Coley, the court found, under the circumstances of this case, that the underlying records in the case in which Lt. Ruiz' testimony was found to be incredible related to the to the subject matter of Coley's case for impeachment purposes because the material from the prior case went toward the weight of Lt. Ruiz's credibility. Coley at 138.

In this case, the defendant has not shown that any of the police misconduct disclosed as potential impeachment was related to the subject matter of the defendant's case or to the charges filed. In the absence of such a showing that any of the misconduct is related to the subject matter of this case or to the charges, the People complied with their statutory automatic discovery obligations by the submission of LEOW letters summarizing each police witness's existing disciplinary history and they need not obtain the underlying documentation.

Since Coley was decided, CPL § 245.20(1)(k) was amended on August 7, 2025. (See, L 2025, ch 56, part LL, § 8) The amendment clarified that the “relate to the subject matter” language applies directly to the impeachment category of discovery. The holding in Coley recognized that a prior finding that a testifying police officer lacked credibility and whose testimony is central to the prosecution of a case is always directly related to the subject matter of the case. While the holdings in Johnson, McCarty, and Jawad and did not involve an adverse judicial credibility finding, the holdings of those cases are not inconsistent with the holding in Coley.

Belated disclosure

Discussion of Due Diligence

First, in considering the factors set forth in CPL § 245.50(5)(a) and in Bay, the People have made considerable efforts to comply with their statutory discovery obligations, and the amount of outstanding discovery is minimal compared to the discovery that has been disclosed. As a general matter, the People have established a discovery compliance unit tasked with communicating with outside agencies to identify, request and obtain discovery materials created by those agencies. The People have also established a law enforcement witness unit responsible for obtaining potential impeachment material against law enforcement officers. In addition, the People have a forensic science unit that works closely with the OCME and NYPD laboratories to identify and obtain discovery related to DNA testing, and firearm and controlled substance analysis.

Specifically, in this case, the People have made significant efforts to obtain and disclose discovery since filing the indictment on May 1, 2025. During that span, the assigned prosecutor corresponded with the arresting officer, and utilized the discovery liaisons. These efforts culminated in the disclosure of over 200 files that included 18 body worn camera videos, activity logs, several police interrogation videos, expert reports from NYPD's laboratory, DD5s from NYPD units that were involved in the investigation, and LEOW letters and various disciplinary records for police witnesses

The creation of these units and allocation of resources to generally address the People's discovery obligations coupled with the specific efforts by the assigned prosecutor support a finding of due diligence on the part of the prosecutor's office coupled with the efforts by the assigned prosecutor.

The vast majority of discovery was disclosed before the People filed their certificate and those efforts support a finding of due diligence on the People's part.

In analyzing the complexity of the case, this court has considered the serious nature of the charges, the factual allegations, the substantial disclosure of discovery, the number of witnesses involved and the involvement of expert witnesses. all indications provided to this court is that this case is not particularity complex. The weight of these factors supports a finding of due diligence.

In this case, the People, consistent with the requirements of CPL § 245.50(1), disclosed the unavailability of the grand jury minutes in their COC. The People also explained in a motion to modify the time for discovery and in their response papers that the grand jury minutes were unavailable for disclosure due to limited capacity of transcription services. Further, the People demonstrated due diligence in seeking to expedite the transcription of the grand jury minutes and promptly disclosed the minutes when they became available. The People's efforts with regard to the belated disclosure of the grand jury minutes weigh in favor of a finding of due diligence.

The People concededly overlooked material subject to automatic discovery that the prosecutor was unaware of when the COC was served. It is not surprising in light of the extensive volume of discovery provided, that a small amount was overlooked. Critical to the analysis of due diligence is the conduct of the prosecutor once learning of the overlooked material. In this case, there were two belated disclosures of material subject to automatic discovery. The first belated disclosure was material discovered by the prosecutor after reviewing some of the investigative files previously disclosed. The prosecutor corrected the omission of material related to Police Officer Diaz by self-reporting the overlooked material by filing a supplemental COC six days after the CC was filed. The prosecutor was alerted by the defense to the second batch of discovery that was belatedly disclosed. Once the defense brought these matters to the attention of the prosecutor, the prosecutor acted promptly, sought out the missing material and within two weeks provided the defense with the requested material. The prompt action by the prosecutor weigh in favor of a finding of due diligence. Moreover, the court finds the defendant was not prejudiced by the delayed disclosures of these materials.

On balance, this court concludes that, given the totality of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations and the manner in which they addressed the discovery lapses, the People exercised due diligence to provide the requested material. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance is denied.

RELEASE PURSUANT TO CPL§ 30.30(2)(a)

The defendant seeks his release, pursuant to CPL § 30.30(2)(a), on the ground that he has been in custody for more than 90 days of includable delay. The People oppose the motion. Under CPL § 30.30(2)(a), a defendant must be released on bail or on his own recognizance if the People are not ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of his confinement where he is accused of a felony.

The defendant was arraigned on the felony complaint on April 3, 2025, charging him with two counts each of Burglary in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 140.20), Petit Larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 215.50[3]), and Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree (Penal Law § 140.10[a]). The court set bail and the case was adjourned to APN on April 7, 2025, for grand jury action. The People are charged from April 3, 2025 to April 7, 2025, a period of 5 days for this adjournment.

On April 7, 2025, the People filed a notice of a voted indictment and the court transferred the case to Supreme Court, TAP A for the defendant's arraignment on May 13, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the defendant was arraigned, the People were not ready to proceed to trial and the case was adjourned to June 4, 2025, for the People to file their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness. The People are charged from April 8, 2025, to May 13, 2025, a period of 36 days for this adjournment.

In the interim, the People filed off calendar their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness on June 2, 2025. The People are charged from May 14, 2025 to June 1, 2025, a period of 19 days. Since this court has found the People's certificate of compliance valid and their statement of readiness effective in tolling the statutory speedy trial time, the People are not charged any time from June 2, 2025, to June 3, 2025.

On June 4, 2025, the court adjourned the case to July 16, 2025, for the defendant to file his motions. The period from June 4, 2025 to July 16, 2025 is excluded and the People are not charged for the period of this adjournment. (see CPL § 30.30[4][a].)

On July 16, 2025, the court set a motion schedule for the People to respond to the defendant's motion and adjourned the case to September 2, 2025, for decision. The period from July 17, 2023 to September 2, 2025 is excluded and the People are not charged for the period of this adjournment. (see CPL § 30.30[4][a].)

The total amount chargeable to the People is 60 days, a period that is far less than the ninety-day speedy trial limitation pursuant to section 30.30(2)(a). Therefore, the defendant's motion for release is denied.

ORDER TO COUNSEL

This court issues this order as both a reminder and a directive that counsel uphold their constitutional, statutory and ethical responsibilities in the above-captioned proceeding:

 To the Prosecutor:

The District Attorney and the Assistant responsible for the case, or, if the matter is not being prosecuted by the District Attorney, the prosecuting agency and its assigned representative, is directed to make timely disclosures of information favorable to the defense as required by Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 (1972), People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 (1981), and their progeny under the United States and New York State constitutions, and pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) article 245 and Rule 3.8(b) of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct, as described hereafter.

• The District Attorney and the Assistant responsible for the case have a duty to learn of such favorable information that is known to others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police, and should therefore confer with investigative and prosecutorial personnel who acted in this case and review their and their agencies' files directly related to the prosecution or investigation of this case.

• Favorable information could include, but is not limited to:

a) Information that impeaches the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness, including (i) benefits, promises, rewards or inducements, express or tacit, made to a witness by a law enforcement official or law enforcement victim services agency in connection with giving testimony or cooperating in the case; (ii) a witness's prior inconsistent statements, written or oral; (iii) a witness's prior convictions and uncharged criminal conduct; (iv) information that tends to show that a witness has a motive to lie to inculpate the defendant, or a bias against the defendant or in favor of the complainant or the prosecution; and (v) information that tends to show impairment of a witness's ability to perceive, recall, or recount relevant events, including impairment of that ability resulting from mental or physical illness or substance abuse.

b) Information that tends to exculpate, reduce the degree of an offense, or support a potential defense to a charged offense.

c) Information that tends to mitigate the degree of the defendant's culpability as to a charged offense, or to mitigate punishment.

d) Information that tends to undermine evidence of the defendant's identity as a perpetrator of a charged crime, such as a non-identification of the defendant by a witness to a charged crime or an identification or other evidence implicating another person in a manner that tends to cast doubt on the defendant's guilt.

e) Information that could affect in the defendant's favor the ultimate decision on a suppression motion.

• Favorable information shall be disclosed whether or not it is recorded in tangible form, and irrespective of whether the prosecutor credits the information.

• Favorable information must be timely disclosed in accordance with the United States and New York State constitutional standards, and in accordance with the timing provisions of CPL article 245. The prosecutor is reminded that the obligation to disclose is a continuing one. Prosecutors should strive to determine if favorable information exists. The prosecutor shall disclose the information expeditiously upon its receipt and shall not delay disclosure if it is obtained earlier than the time period for disclosure in CPL 245.10(1).

• A protective order may be issued for good cause pursuant to CPL 245.70 with respect to disclosures required under this order.

• Failures to provide disclosure in accordance with CPL Article 245 are subject to the available remedies and sanctions for nondisclosures pursuant to CPL 245.80.

• Only willful and deliberate conduct will constitute a violation of this order or be eligible to result in personal sanctions against a prosecutor.

To Defense Counsel:

Defense counsel, having filed a notice of appearance in the above captioned case, is obligated under both the New York State and the United States Constitution to provide effective representation of defendant. Although the following list is not meant to be exhaustive, counsel shall remain cognizant of the obligation to:

a) Confer with the client about the case and keep the client informed about all significant developments in the case;

b) Timely communicate to the client any and all guilty plea offers, and provide reasonable advice about the advantages and disadvantages of such guilty plea offers and about the potential sentencing ranges that would apply in the case;

c) When applicable based upon the client's immigration status, ensure that the client receives competent advice regarding the immigration consequences in the case as required under Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010);

d) Perform a reasonable investigation of both the facts and the law pertinent to the case (including as applicable, e.g., visiting the scene, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing pertinent materials, consulting experts, inspecting exhibits, reviewing all discovery materials obtained from the prosecution, researching legal issues, etc.), or, if appropriate, make a reasonable professional judgment not to investigate a particular matter;

e) Comply with the requirements of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest, and when appropriate, timely notify the court of a possible conflict so that an inquiry may be undertaken or a ruling made;

f) Possess or acquire a reasonable knowledge and familiarity with criminal substantive, procedural and evidentiary law to ensure constitutionally effective representation in the case; and

g) When the statutory requirements necessary to trigger required notice from the defense are met (e.g., a demand, intent to introduce particular evidence, etc.), comply with the statutory notice obligations for the defense as specified in CPL 250.10, 250.20, and 250.30.

LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS

The branch of the motion requesting leave to file additional motions is granted to the extent recognized by CPL 255.20(3).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

The Clerk of the court is directed to distribute copies of this decision and order to the attorney for the defendant and to the District Attorney.

Gary F. Miret, J.