The People, etc., appellant, v. Michel Raly, respondent. (2026)

Argued—April 17, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

O/

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Karen Gopee, J.), dated May 3, 2024.  The order granted the defendant's motion to strike the People's certificate of compliance and supplemental certificates of compliance and pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

In connection with a homicide investigation, the defendant was approached on the street by police officers.  As a result of the encounter, a gun was recovered by the police from the defendant's person.  The defendant was arraigned on November 11, 2022, and thereafter indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.  The People served and filed a certificate of compliance (hereinafter COC) and statement of readiness on April 14, 2023, a supplemental COC in July 2023, and a second supplemental COC on September 6, 2023.

Thereafter, the defendant moved to strike the People's COC and supplemental COCs and pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial.  In an order dated May 3, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the motion.  The People appeal.

“In felony cases such as this one, CPL 30.30 requires the People to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the action” (People v. Serrano, 234 AD3d 879, 882;  see CPL 30.30[1][a] ).  “Filing a valid COC is a prerequisite to trial readiness” (People v. Fuentes, _ NY3d _, _, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op 05872, *2;  see CPL 245.50[3] ).  “[T]he key question in determining if a proper COC has been filed is whether the prosecution has ‘exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery’ ” (People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211, quoting CPL 245.20[2] ).  The burden of making that showing is on the prosecution and “[i]f the prosecution fails to make such a showing, the COC should be deemed improper, the readiness statement stricken as illusory, and—so long as the time chargeable to the People exceeds the applicable CPL 30.30 period—the case dismissed” (id. at 213).

Here, regardless of whether certain body camera audit trails were subject to mandatory disclosure, the People failed to establish that they exercised due diligence with respect to disclosure of other material and information subject to discovery, including police memo books, property vouchers, and chain of custody reports (see CPL 245.20[1][e];  People v. Bay, 41 NY3d at 215;  People v. Serrano, 234 AD3d at 883).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to strike the People's COC and supplemental COCs (see People v. Pierre, 244 AD3d 1139, 1140).

Since the People's contention that they did not exceed the applicable period under CPL 30.30(1) was dependent on their contention that the COC and supplemental COCs were valid, we affirm the order appealed from (see People v. Pierre, 244 AD3d 1139).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court