The People of the State of New York v. A.D., Defendant. (2026)

The Defendant is charged by indictment with one count of Assault in the Second Degree (PL § 120.05[1]) and one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.01[2]). The Defendant moves this Court to deem the People's July 10, 2024 certificate of compliance (COC) invalid; (ii) declare the People's statements of readiness illusory; and (iii) dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL §§ 210.20(g) and 30.30(1)(a).¹

For the reasons that follow, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that the People's July 10, 2024 COC is invalid, the statements of readiness were ineffective, and two hundred and thirty (230) days are charged to the People.

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

The Defendant asserts that the People's July 10, 2024 COC (People's COC) is invalid, and the People failed to demonstrate due diligence to meet their automatic discovery obligations because the People (i) belatedly disclosed materials related to the Defendant's 311 call the day prior to the incident; and (ii) failed to disclose expert witness materials. Specifically, the Defendant alleges that the People:

1. Belatedly disclosed, in January 2026, two body-worn camera (BWC) videos and associated files, "61" complaint report, activity logs, and officer disclosures related to Defendant's 9/12/23 call to 311; and

2. Failed to disclose expert witness documents.

The Defendant further argues that because the People's COC is invalid, the People's statements of readiness must be deemed invalid as well.

Procedural History  ²

On September 14, 2023, the Defendant was arraigned in criminal court on a felony complaint. The case was indicted and the indictment was filed on January 2, 2024. The Defendant testified in the grand jury and indicated that he had called 311 on September 12, 2023, the day before the incident, to report that the complainant had threatened to kill him.

On February 2, 2024, the Defendant was arraigned on the indictment, and the matter was adjourned several times for the court to render its decision on the Defendant's omnibus motions. The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30; on August 29, 2024, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and found that a total of one hundred and fifty-four (154) days were chargeable to the People between September 14, 2023 and July 10, 2024. On July 10, 2024, the People filed and served their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness. On September 30, 2024, the Defendant moved to re-argue the court's decision on his CPL § 30.30 dismissal motion, and on November 21, 2024, the court denied that motion.

On the next court date, November 21, 2024, the matter was adjourned for hearing and trial to January 8, 2025. On January 8, 2025, the matter was adjourned for possible disposition on consent to February 18, 2025. On February 18, 2025, no disposition was reached and the matter was adjourned to April 14, 2025 for hearing and trial. Between April 14, 2025, and October 29, 2025, the Defendant waived his CPL § 30.30 rights and the matter was adjourned several times for control or possible disposition. On October 29, 2025, the matter was adjourned to November 24, 2025 for hearing and trial. During this period, the People filed a certificate of readiness on November 17, 2025 off-calendar. On November 24, 2025, the matter was once again adjourned for hearing and trial, to January 7, 2026. Also on November 24, 2025, the People informed Defense Counsel that they intended to provide additional discovery relating to the Defendant's September 12, 2023 311 call. On December 29, 2025, Defense Counsel contacted the People and asked about the status of the additional 311 call discovery. On January 2, 2026, the People disclosed two (2) BWC videos and associated files related to the Defendant's 311 call; the People do not appear to have filed a supplemental COC (SCOC) for this disclosure. On January 7, 2026, in court, Defense Counsel made a record of the belated disclosure of the BWC several days before. On that date, the case was adjourned for trial to February 26, 2026. On January 9, 2026, the People filed and served a SCOC and restatement of readiness (i) detailing the disclosure on that same day of officers' call report, memo books, and law enforcement disclosures for the officers who responded to the Defendant's September 12, 2023 call to 311; and (ii) noting that the audio of the 311 call was unobtainable.³ The Defendant filed the instant motion on February 9, 2026.

Timing and Procedure

CPL Article 245, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, and was recently amended (L 2025, c 56, part LL), sets forth the procedure for discovery in all criminal cases, including the time periods in which the "the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations." CPL § 245.10(l)(a); see People v. Luna, 83 Misc 3d 62, 65 (App. Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10 Jud. Dists. 2024). When, as is the case here, the defendant is in custody, the People are required to perform their initial discovery obligations as soon as practicable but not later than twenty (20) days after the defendant's arraignment. See CPL § 245.10(l)(a)(i). However, where the discoverable materials are "exceptionally voluminous" or, "despite diligent, good faith efforts, are otherwise not in the actual possession of the prosecution," this 35-day limit can be stayed up to 30 days without a motion. CPL § 245.10(l)(a); see also CPL § 245.10(l)(a)(iv)(B) (permitting the People to make a CPL § 245.70[2] motion to further extend the time period for the same reasons). Pursuant to CPL Article 245, the People's "automatic discovery" obligations as defined in CPL § 245.20 must be satisfied before they can announce their readiness for trial. See CPL § 245.50(3); 30.30(5).

To facilitate the People's ability to obtain the discovery from the police, Article 245 imposes upon the People an obligation to "ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police and other investigative personnel and his or her office sufficient to place within his or her possession or control all material and information pertinent to the defendant and the offense or offenses charged." CPL § 245.55(1). Furthermore, the law requires New York state and local law enforcement agencies to provide the People with copies of their records and files upon request:

Absent a court order or a requirement that defense counsel obtain a security clearance mandated by law or authorized government regulation, upon request by the prosecution, each New York state and local law enforcement agency shall make available to the prosecution a complete copy of its complete records and files related to the investigation of the case or the prosecution of the defendant for compliance with this article.

CPL § 245.55(2) (emphasis added).

Once the People have performed their automatic discovery obligations, they must serve and file a COC. CPL § 245.50(1). The 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 "disclosed and made available all known material and information it has obtained subject to discovery. It shall also identify the items provided." Id.; see People v. Torres, 205 AD3d 524 (1st Dept 2022); People v. Drayton, 231 AD3d 1057 (2d Dept 2024). Further, the COC must identify the items that the People know they are required to disclose but have been unable to obtain despite the exercise of due diligence. Absent an individualized finding of special circumstances, only after filing a valid COC can the People announce their readiness for trial and stop the speedy trial clock. CPL § 245.50(3); see also CPL § 30.30(5); People v. Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158 (2d Dept 2024). Once the People have filed their COC, the defense has up to 30 days to perform their discovery obligations under CPL § 245.20(4). CPL § 245.10(2).

Moreover, under CPL § 245.60, both the People and the defendant have a continuing duty to disclose. Specifically:

If either the prosecution or the defendant subsequently learns of additional material or information which it would have been under a duty to disclose pursuant to any provisions of this article, had it known of it at the time of a previous discovery obligation or discovery order, it shall expeditiously notify the other party and disclose the additional material and information as required for initial discovery under this article.

CPL § 245.60.

If such additional material is discovered, the People must file a supplemental COC. In their supplemental COC, the People are required to:

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. The filing of a supplemental certificate of compliance shall not impact the validity of the original certificate of compliance if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence pursuant to section 245.20 of this article, or if the additional discovery did not exist at the time of the filing of the original certificate of compliance.

CPL § 245.50(1-a); see CPL § 245.50(1).

In addition, CPL Article 245 provides the court with mechanisms to address and streamline any disputes about discovery. First, the court can order the parties to "diligently confer to attempt to reach an accommodation as to any dispute concerning discovery prior to seeking a ruling from the court." CPL § 245.35(1). Second, the court can order a discovery compliance conference prior to trial with the parties and the court. CPL § 245.35(2). Lastly, any challenge to the validity of a COC must be filed "within thirty-five [35] days of the service of the certificate" and must

be accompanied by an affirmation by the moving party that, after the filing of the opposing party's certificate of compliance, such moving party timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the opposing party or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached.

CPL § 245.50(4). The thirty-five (35) day deadline may be extended upon request of the Defendant, prior to the expiration of the thirty-five (35) day period, "for good cause shown." Id. Where the COC was filed before the amendments to CPL Article 245, the amendment provides that the time period "shall run from the effective date of this act," in other words, August 7, 2025, and "shall apply to all criminal actions pending on such date." See L 2025, c 56, part LL, § 8. If, however, there is a "material change in circumstances," CPL Article 245 permits the Defendant to challenge a COC after the expiration of the thirty-five (35) day deadline. Id. A material change in circumstances could be "the belated disclosure of discoverable material . . . or, where the party entitled to disclosure could not, with due diligence, have known the specific and particularized matters forming the basis of the challenge prior to the expiration of such period." Id.

Here, the People filed their COC on July 10, 2024, and the Defense did not file a motion challenging it until February 9, 2026. However, the basis of the Defendant's challenge centers around the People's belated disclosure of Defendant's 311 call materials, which were disclosed only in January 2026. Specifically, on January 2, 2026, the People provided to the Defense BWC video connected with the Defendant's September 12, 2023 call to 311; there is no record of a SCOC for this disclosure. On January 9, 2026, the People filed and served a SCOC detailing the disclosure of officers' call report, memo books, and law enforcement disclosures for the officers who responded to the Defendant's September 12, 2023 call to 311, and noting that the audio of the 311 call was unobtainable. The disclosure of the 311 call materials over two years after the incident and the Defendant's arrest constitutes a "material change in circumstances" for purposes of the Defendant's motion. See CPL § 245.50(4)(c)(ii). As more fully discussed below, the 311 call materials were central to the Defendant's justification defense, and due to the People's delay in obtaining the materials, important discoverable material, specifically the audio of the 311 call, was no longer available. Consequently, the Defendant is entitled to challenge the People's COC at this time.

Automatic Discovery

CPL § 245.20(1) sets forth twenty-one (21) categories of material subject to automatic disclosure, but the People's disclosure obligations are not limited to these categories. See CPL § 245.20(1)(v); People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 208-209 (2023); People v. Walker, 228 AD3d 1318 (4th Dept 2024); People v. Soto, 72 Misc 3d 1153, 1155 (Crim. Ct., NY County 2021) (CPL § 245.20[1] provides a "non-exhaustive list of the items the People must automatically disclose to the defendant"); People v. Pennant, 73 Misc 3d 753 (Dist. Ct., Nassau County 2021). There is a "presumption in favor of disclosure" when interpreting what to disclose as automatic discovery under CPL § 245.20(1). CPL § 245.20(7); see People v. Rahman, 79 Misc 3d 129(A), 2023 NY Slip Op 50692(U) (App. Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2023); People v. Bonifacio, 179 AD3d 977, 978 (2d Dep 2020); People v. Rugerio-Rivera, 77 Misc 3d 1230(A), 2023 NY Slip Op 50069(U) (Crim. Ct., Queens County 2023); see also People v. Best, 76 Misc 3d 1210(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50859(U) (Crim. Ct., Queens County 2022); People v. Diaz, 75 Misc 3d 314 (Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022); People v. Edwards, 74 Misc 3d 433 (Crim. Ct., NY County 2021); People v. Soto, 72 Misc 3d 1153 (Crim. Ct., NY County 2021); People v. Castellanos, 72 Misc 3d 371 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County 2021); People v. Kelly, 71 Misc 3d 1202(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50264(U) (Crim. Ct., NY County 2021); People v. Georgiopoulos, 71 Misc 3d 1215(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50380(U) (Sup. Ct., Queens County 2021); People v. Altug, 70 Misc 3d 1218(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50145(U) (Crim. Ct., NY County 2021).

When the defendant claims that the COC is missing discoverable items, the court must determine whether the People "exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries and efforts to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose material and information subject to discovery." CPL § 245.50(1); see also CPL § 245.20(2) (the "prosecutor shall make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of" discovery materials outside of their possession); CPL § 245.50(3) (court may deem prosecution ready where mandatory discovery has been lost or destroyed or is otherwise unavailable "despite diligent and good faith efforts, reasonable under the circumstances"). In assessing the People's reasonable efforts and due diligence, the court must engage in a case-specific analysis of the facts and circumstances presented in that matter. Bay at 212. In Bay, the Court of Appeals explained:

An analysis of whether the People made reasonable efforts sufficient to satisfy CPL article 245 is fundamentally case-specific, as with any question of reasonableness, and will turn on the circumstances presented. 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. at 212 (internal citations omitted); People v. Lee, --- N.Y.S. 3d ---, 2026 NY Slip Op 03125, *2 (1st Dep't 2026) ("[t]he analysis calls for a holistic assessment of the People's efforts to comply with the automatic discovery provisions, rather than a strict item-by-item test that would require this Court to conclude that a COC is improper if the People miss even one item of discovery") (internal citations omitted).

The recent amendments to CPL Article 245 codify and expand upon the diligence assessment articulated in Bay. See CPL § 245.50(5). When assessing due diligence, "the court shall look at the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245], rather than assess [their] efforts item by item." Id. That is, "[t]he court's determination shall be based on consideration of all factors" set forth in CPL § 245.50(5)(a) and "no one factor shall be determinative." CPL § 245.50(5)(b). The relevant factors provided therein 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 outstanding;

(3) the complexity of the case;

(4) whether the People knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly 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 discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial.

See CPL § 245.50(5)(a). In Bay, the Court further explained that although "due diligence" is not defined in CPL Article 245, "it is a familiar and flexible standard that requires the People 'to make reasonable efforts' to comply with statutory directives." Bay at 211 (citing People v. Bolden, 81 NY2d 146, 155 [1993]; see People v. Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 80-81 [1995]). "Reasonableness, then, is the touchstone - a concept confirmed by the statutory directive to make 'reasonable inquiries.' " Bay at 211-212 (internal citations omitted).

The People bear the burden of establishing that they did, in fact, prior to filing the initial COC despite a belated or missing disclosure:

(1) exercise due diligence (see supra); and

(2) make reasonable inquiries (Bay at 213; see People v. Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 [1986], citing People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 [1980]).

Importantly, the court shall not invalidate a COC where the People have exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the required disclosure materials specified in CPL § 245.20. CPL § 245.50(6).

Applying these legal standards to the instant matter, the Court finds that the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining and disclosing discoverable materials related to the Defendant's September 12, 2023 call to 311. On December 28, 2023, the Defendant testified before the grand jury that he had called 311 the day before the incident, to report that the complainant had threatened to shoot and kill him. The Defendant further testified that on that same day, police officers responded to that call, and spoke with him and the complainant. The Defendant explained that the next day — the day of the incident — the complainant confronted the Defendant, placed his hands inside his shirt, and again threatened to kill the Defendant. The Defendant further testified that he was afraid, and swung a broomstick at the complainant to "get him away from me." Grand Jury Minutes at p. 35, lines 4-5.

Thus, as of December 28, 2023, the People were on actual notice that the Defendant was asserting a defense of justification and that NYPD records relating to that defense most likely existed. Yet, the People made no efforts to obtain these records for two years, and when they finally disclosed the materials more than two years after the 311 call was placed, the audio of the call was no longer available. Initially, the Court notes that the Defendant's 311 call materials are plainly discoverable as "statements . . . made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including all police reports, notes of police or other investigators, and law enforcement agency reports," and "evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in the case, that tends to . . . support a potential defense to a charged offense." CPL § 245.20(1)(e) and (k)(iii).

The People detail no efforts to obtain any police records relating to the Defendant's 311 call prior to November 2025. And even after disclosing limited materials relating to the 311 call, the People only obtained additional records in response to Defense Counsel's insistence. The People's explanations for their failure to obtain and disclose the 311 call material prior to filing their COC are unavailing. First, the People assert that they "had no reason to know of [the 311] call." People's Response at ¶ 9. Given the Defendant's grand jury testimony, this explanation is unconvincing. Second, the People claim that they did not believe that the materials were discoverable because, in their opinion, the evidence in the case "negat[ed] a self-defense claim." People's Response at ¶ 9. The prosecutor's subjective belief that the Defendant's potential defense is not persuasive does not provide a basis to withhold discoverable material that tends to "support a potential defense to a charged offense." CPL § 245.20(k)(iii). Finally, the People assert that the "defense has failed to show that they have been unduly prejudiced." People's Response at ¶ 13. However, "a defendant need not demonstrate prejudice to obtain speedy trial dismissal based on a failure to timely comply with discovery obligations." Bay at 213. Here, the 311 call records were clearly material and provided crucial corroboration of the Defendant's justification defense; as a result of the People's lack of diligence in requesting these records, the audio of the 311 call no longer existed. Thus, the Court finds that the People failed to exercise due diligence and the Defendant was prejudiced by the belated disclosure.

In conclusion, as of December 28, 2023, the People were on actual notice that Defendant's 311 call materials existed; the People took no action to obtain these records for a period of two years and they filed their COC without disclosing these records; the 311 call records were not duplicative of other records previously disclosed; and the People's delayed disclosure was prejudicial to the Defense. CPL § 245.50(5)(a). As such, the Court finds that the People did not exercise due diligence or make reasonable inquiries prior to filing their July 10, 2024 COC. Accordingly, the Court deems the People's COC and accompanying certificate of readiness invalid.⁴

SPEEDY TRIAL

To be successful on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating the existence of a delay in excess of the applicable speedy trial time limit. People v. Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 (1986). Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the People to establish that certain periods within that time should be excluded. People v. Barden, 27 NY3d 550 (2016); People v. Santana, 80 NY2d 92, 105 (1992); People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333 (1980).

Generally, the burden is on the People to establish their entitlement to exclude any pre-readiness delays from the calculation under a CPL 30.30 motion and the burden is on a defendant to prove that any post-readiness delays that directly implicate the People's ability to proceed with trial are chargeable to the People, unless the People failed to satisfy their burden to ensure that the record is sufficiently clear as to who is chargeable for an adjournment (see People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201, 210, 215-216 [1992]).

People v. Robinson, 67 AD3d 1042, 1044 (3d Dept 2009), lv. denied 13 NY3d 910 (2009). The People are considered to be ready for trial when they communicate their actual readiness in open court or file a certificate of actual readiness with the court and serve a copy on the defendant's attorney. People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 (1985).

Here, the top count charged in this case is Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of PL § 120.05(3), a class D felony. Accordingly, the People are required to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, less any excludable time. CPL § 30.30(1)(a). On September 14, 2023, this action commenced with the filing of a felony complaint. CPL § 1.20(17) (a "criminal action is commenced by filing of the accusatory instrument against a defendant in a criminal court . . . "). Thus, the six-month period here equates to one hundred and eighty-two (182) days.

September 14, 2023 to July 10, 2024: On September 14, 2023, the Defendant was arraigned in Criminal Court upon the felony complaint. The case was adjourned for grand jury action and subsequently indicted on January 2, 2024. On February 1, 2024, the Defendant was arraigned on the indictment in Supreme Court, and the matter was adjourned several times for the court to render its decision on the Defendant's omnibus motions. The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30; on August 29, 2024, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and found that a total of one hundred and fifty-four (154) days were chargeable to the People between September 14, 2023 and July 10, 2024. On July 10, 2024, the People filed and served their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness. The court's determination of the chargeable time prior to the filing of the People's COC is law of the case. [one hundred and fifty-four (154) total days charged]

August 29, 2024 to September 23, 2024: On August 29, 2024, after the court issued its decision on the Defendant's CPL § 30.30 motion, the case was adjourned to September 23, 2024 for hearing and trial. The Defendant does not contend that this adjournment is chargeable. [one hundred and fifty-four (154) total days charged]

September 23, 2024 to November 21, 2024: On September 23, 2024, the parties appeared and the court set a motion schedule for the Defendant's motion to re-argue the court's decision on his CPL § 30.30 dismissal motion. The matter was adjourned to November 21, 2024 for decision. As this adjournment was occasioned by the Defendant's motion practice, the entire period is excludable. See CPL § 30.30(4)(a). [one hundred and fifty-four (154) total days charged]

November 21, 2024 to January 8, 2025: On November 21, 2024, the court issued its decision denying the Defendant's motion to re-argue and indicated a written decision would be issued off-calendar.⁵ The Defendant contends that this entire period is chargeable to the People. The People do not address this adjournment specifically, and failed to provide the Court with minutes of the November 21, 2024 proceedings. Indeed, even after the Court requested that the People supply the minutes for this date, the People did not do so. The People have failed to meet their burden to establish the "factual and statutory basis" for exclusion of this period. People v. Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 (1986). Accordingly, this entire forty-eight (48) day period is chargeable to the People. [two hundred and two (202) total days charged]

January 8, 2025 to February 18, 2025: On the next court date, January 8, 2025, the matter was adjourned for possible disposition on consent to February 18, 2025, and the Defendant concedes that this period is excludable. [two hundred and two (202) total days charged]

February 18, 2025 to April 14, 2025: On February 18, 2025, no disposition was reached and the matter was adjourned to April 14, 2025 for hearing and trial. This adjournment is excludable as the first adjournment after unsuccessful plea negotiations. See People v. Mercedes, 172 AD3d 599 (1st Dep't 2019); People v. Bahadur, 41 AD3d 239 (1st Dep't 2007); People v. Reynoso, 295 AD2d 156 (1st Dep't 2002); People v. Eliapoulos, 290 AD2d 301 (1st Dep't 2002) (adjournment resulting from unsuccessful plea negotiations and People's subsequent need for reasonable time to prepare for trial excludable); People v. Delgadorivera, 2018 NY Misc. LEXIS 8650, *11 (Sup. Ct., New York County 2018) (51-day adjournment for hearing and trial following a failed plea after a possible disposition on consent is excludable). [two hundred and two (202) total days charged]

April 14, 2025 to October 29, 2025: Between April 14, 2025, and October 29, 2025, the Defendant waived his CPL § 30.30 rights and the matter was adjourned several times for control or possible disposition. Accordingly, this entire period is excludable. [two hundred and two (202) total days charged]

October 29, 2025 to November 24, 2025: On October 29, 2025, the matter was adjourned to November 24, 2025 for hearing and trial. During this period, the People filed a certificate of readiness on November 17, 2025 off-calendar. However, this certificate of readiness was illusory as the People had not yet disclosed the 311 call materials. The Court having deemed the People's COC and accompanying certificate of readiness invalid, this entire twenty-six (26) day period is chargeable to the People. [two hundred and twenty-eight (228) total days charged]

November 24, 2025 to January 7, 2026: On November 24, 2025, the matter was once again adjourned for hearing and trial, to January 7, 2026. On January 2, 2026, the People disclosed two (2) BWC videos and associated files related to the Defendant's September 12, 2023 call to 311; the People do not appear to have filed a supplemental COC (SCOC) for this disclosure. The Defendant indicates that he was not ready to proceed on that date and does not contend that this adjournment period is chargeable. [two hundred and twenty-eight (228) total days charged]

On January 7, 2026 to February 9, 2026: On January 7, 2026, in court, Defense Counsel made a record of the belated disclosure of the BWC video several days before. On that date, the case was adjourned for trial to February 26, 2026. On January 9, 2026, the People filed and served a SCOC and restatement of readiness (i) detailing the disclosure on that same day of officers' call report, memo books, and law enforcement disclosures for the officers who responded to the Defendant's September 12, 2023 call to 311; and (ii) noting that the audio of the 311 call was unobtainable. The Defendant filed the instant motion on February 9, 2026. Because the People disclosed the 311 call materials on January 2, 2026 and January 9, 2026, the SCOC and statement of readiness filed on January 9, 2026 are valid and stopped the speedy trial clock. See People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 (1985). Accordingly, only two (2) days of this adjournment period are chargeable to the People. [two hundred and thirty (230) total days charged]

Thus, the Court finds that there are two hundred and thirty (230) total chargeable days to date.

Since more than one hundred and eighty-two (182) days are charged, the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is GRANTED. CPL § 30.30(1)(a).

The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.

DATE: June 18, 2026

New York, NY

JULIETA V. LOZANO

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the Defendant's motion references CPL § 30.30(1)(b) dismissal, because the Defendant is charged with a felony, the applicable section is CPL § 30.30(1)(a).

2.   The Court here provides only a brief procedural history including facts relevant to the instant motion.

3.   The January 9, 2026 SCOC also memorialized the disclosure of updated law enforcement materials for police officers who responded to the incident.

4.   Given the Court's finding regarding the belatedly disclosed 311 call materials, the Court need not address the Defendant's claim regarding missing expert witness materials.

5.   The court's written decision denying the Defendant's motion to re-argue was issued on January 7, 2025.

Julieta V. Lozano, J.