The People of the State of New York v. Kareem Wiggins, Defendants. (2026)

By motion dated November 17, 2025, defendant challenges the People's certificate of compliance, dated October 14, 2025, contending that the People failed to provide "critical items" of discovery consisting of: (1) unredacted copies of the transcript of the search warrant application in this case (herein, "search warrant transcript"); (2) the affirmation submitted in support of the search warrant application (herein, "search warrant affirmation"); (3) a witness list; and (4) the proficiency test results for their ballistics expert. Defendant acknowledges that the People provided a redacted copy of the search warrant transcript, but notes that a protective order was never sought for the information that was redacted. Defense counsel submits that "even though [he] emailed the People on October 22, 2025, about the outstanding items, and on October 28, 2025, made a record in court as to the outstanding items, the People [had] not yet provided them, nor updated defense counsel on their efforts to provide them." Thus, defendant contends that "the People have not exercised due diligence and their COC should be found invalid." In support of his motion, defense counsel attaches his email from October 22, 2025.

In supplemental papers dated May 26, 2026, defendant acknowledges that the People have since provided a witness list, the proficiency test results for their ballistic expert, and a redacted copy of the search warrant affirmation. However, defendant contends that unredacted copies of the search warrant transcript and affirmation are still outstanding. In support of his supplemental submission, defense counsel again attaches his email from October 22, 2025, along with a redacted copy of the search warrant transcript, an unredacted copy of the search warrant, and a redacted copy of the search warrant affirmation.

In opposition papers dated June 10, 2026, the People contend that the search warrant transcript and affirmation were properly redacted pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(c), which allows them "to withhold or redact information that would reveal a confidential informant's identity without need for a motion for a court-issued protective order." As to the other items, the People contend that they had been "inadvertently overlooked" when they filed their certificate of compliance, and that once they had been notified that these items were outstanding, they "made efforts to provide them as expeditiously as possible," ultimately turning them over along with a supplemental certificate of compliance a week after defendant filed his initial motion. Thus, the People argue, their initial failure to "provide a handful of items does not mean the due diligence was not practiced." The People further contend that defense counsel failed to diligently confer with them to resolve the outstanding discovery issues before filing the instant challenge. Under separate cover, they provide unredacted copies of the search warrant transcript and affirmation for ex parte in camera review.

In reply papers dated June 18, 2026, defense counsel contends that CPL 245.20(1)(c) only permits the People to redact "information related to the identity" of the confidential informant, which only allows the People to unilaterally redact the confidential informant's name, date of birth, and contact information, but does not allow them to redact his or her observations as recounted in the search warrant transcript and affirmation. Additionally, defense counsel contends that the People's reliance on CPL 245.20(1)(c) is "untimely," insofar as the People only mention their reliance thereon in their opposition papers, but did not respond to defendant's October 22, 2025, email, and made no effort to justify their redaction of the search warrant transcript on the record when the case was called on October 28, 2025, instead simply stating off the record that their discovery disclosure on November 24, 2025, "resolved any outstanding discovery issues." Defense counsel submits, however, that the issue remains unresolved. In support of his reply papers, defense counsel again attaches a copy of his email from October 22, 2025.

For the reasons set forth herein, defendant's challenge is denied.

I. RELEVANT TIMELINE

On August 4, 2025, this Court (Morales, J.) issued a decision and order on defendant's omnibus motion. Relevant here, Justice Morales directed 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," per CPL 245.35(1).

The People filed their certificate of compliance on October 14, 2025. In it, the People provided a comprehensive list of materials that had been turned over to the defense on April 22, 2025, August 8, 2025, September 15, 2025, and October 14, 2025. Relevant to this motion, the People's certificate of compliance included the activity logs and body-worn camera footage of eighteen police officers, the "complete NYPD laboratory file," the grand jury minutes and exhibits, the search warrant, and the "search warrant application minutes (redacted)." The People emailed defense counsel that same day, alerting him of their submission, and asking him to please advise them if he believed something was missing.

On October 22, 2025, defendant sent an email to the People identifying the items of discoverable materials enumerated above that he contended were missing.

On October 28, 2025, the parties appeared in court before Justice Morales, whose notes from the proceedings that date indicate, in pertinent part, "outstanding discovery issues, parties conferring, search warrant almost entirely redacted."

On November 17, 2025, after having sent just one email to the People and having one conversation in court, defense counsel filed the instant challenge.

On November 24, 2025, the People filed a supplemental certificate of compliance. Relevant to this motion, the People indicated therein that additional discovery had been provided to defense counsel on November 18, 2025, and November 24, 2025, which included the People's witness list, the "search warrant application (redacted)," and the proficiency exam results for their ballistics expert.

On May 26, 2026, defense counsel filed a supplemental challenge.

On June 10, 2026, the People submitted a letter in opposition, and provided the Court with unredacted copies of the search warrant transcript and affirmation for ex parte in camera review.

This decision ensues.

II. DISCUSSION

The rules of discovery are governed by CPL Article 245.

CPL 245.20(1) provides that the prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test material and information in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control in 22 listed categories of items and information. Of particular import here, CPL 245.20(1)(c) requires the People to provide "the names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged," but permits the People to withhold and redact information "relating to the identity" of a confidential informant without the need to apply for a protective order, provided the People "notify defendant in writing that such information has not been disclosed."

CPL 245.35(1) provides that defense counsel must diligently confer with the People to attempt to reach an accommodation as to any dispute concerning discovery prior to seeking a ruling from the Court.

CPL 245.50(1) provides that a certificate of compliance is valid when the prosecution has exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by CPL 245.20(1). Belated disclosures of discoverable materials do not automatically invalidate a certificate of compliance if the People establish that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing their initial certificate of compliance. The diligence of the People and the reasonableness of their efforts to obtain and provide discovery is a mixed question of fact and law that is case specific and will turn on the circumstances presented. People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023).

In 2025, the legislature made numerous changes to CPL 245.20 (in terms of defining discoverable materials) and to 245.50 (regarding requirements for certificates of compliance and statements of trial readiness), which went into effect on August 7, 2025, and thus are applicable here. These changes partially codified the ruling in Bay, and included factors that the reviewing court shall consider when evaluating "due diligence," and requires the court to evaluate the totality of the party's efforts to comply with discovery, rather than assessing the party's efforts item by item, to consider all factors listed in CPL 245.50(5)(a), none of which is determinative, and to explain the basis for its determination on the record or in writing. See CPL 245.50(5).

The disclosure requirements of CPL Article 245 only pertain to known items, and do not force disclosure of items that are lost, destroyed, or non-existent. Thus, the People may still file a valid certificate of compliance even if certain items are missing, as long as reasonable efforts were made to locate them, or if minimal items — like those at issue here — were inadvertently overlooked and provided within a reasonable time once their non-disclosure was pointed out by the defense.

Here, the record shows that the People demonstrated due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by CPL 245.20(1) prior to filing their initial certificate of compliance, as evidenced by the numerous dates on which discovery was turned over and the sheer volume of materials that were provided. Additionally, the record further demonstrates that the People responded promptly and diligently to defense counsel's October 22, 2025, email enumerating the discovery items that he contended were missing, providing the witness list, the proficiency test results for their ballistics expert, and a redacted copy of the search warrant transcript by November 24, 2025.

Defense counsel acknowledges, as he must, that CPL 245.20(1)(c) allows the People to redact the confidential informant's identifying information, but insists that "the statute's plain language" only "allows the People to unilaterally redact identifying information such as the name, date of birth, and contact information of the [confidential informant]." This errant pedantry completely undermines the protections provided by this statute, would have a chilling effect on future law enforcement operations, and is based solely on defense counsel's overly narrow interpretation of the statutory language and his own ipse dixit, completely unsupported by any other statute, legislative history, or jurisprudence. Here, having reviewed the unredacted search warrant transcript and affirmation ex parte in camera, it is abundantly clear to this Court that the redacted information would readily identify the confidential informant, and thus has been withheld properly. Moreover, the People's certificate of compliance and supplemental certificate of compliance notified defense counsel that the search warrant transcript and affirmation had been redacted, thus fully satisfying the disclosure mandates of CPL 245.20(1)(c).

Insofar as defendant contends that "the People did not respond to counsel's [October 14, 2025] email," his argument is rejected. The records before the Court clearly show that by November 24, 2025, all of the items he identified had been sent to him.

Insofar as defendant contends that the People's reliance on CPL 245.20(1)(c) to justify their redactions to the search warrant transcript and affirmation is somehow untimely, because they did not "provide a legal justification for their wholesale redactions" in response to his October 14, 2025, email, and "did not seek to justify their redactions" when the issue was brought up in court on October 28, 2025, he cites no statute or jurisprudence requiring them to do so. In this Court's opinion, it is defense counsel's obligation to know the provisions of CPL 245.20(1)(c), which the People followed: it is not the People's obligation to educate defense counsel on what the discovery laws provide, nor to "justify their redactions" to the search warrant transcript and affirmation.

Finally, as the People aptly note, defendant's minimal efforts to resolve the disputed discovery — sending one email and having one conversation before filing the instant challenge — fall well short of the requirement imposed under CPL 245.35(1), as well as Justice Morales' explicit direction, "to diligently confer to attempt to reach an accommodation as to any dispute concerning discovery prior to seeking a ruling from the court."

In sum, the Court finds that the totality of the record shows that the People acted with due diligence and made reasonable efforts to obtain and provide all of the required discoverable materials prior to filing their certificate of compliance, that they filed their certificate of compliance in good faith, and that they diligently responded to defendant's e-mails regarding the missing discovery in a meaningful way, providing the missing materials expeditiously. The Court further finds that People were well within their rights to redact information contained in the search warrant transcript and affirmation that would identify the confidential informant without seeking a protective order, and that they duly notified defense counsel that they had done so, in full satisfaction of CPL 245.20(1)(c). Moreover, there is no indication that the defense made a diligent effort to seek an accommodation with the People about the disputed discovery items at issue here prior to filing his instant motion, in complete derogation of CPL 245.35(1) and Justice Morales' explicit direction. Thus, defendant's instant challenge to the People's certificate of compliance is denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, defendant's challenge to the People's certificate of compliance is denied.

This memorandum shall constitute the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: July 8, 2026

Bronx, New York

ENTER.

Hon. Steven Hornstein

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

Steven Hornstein, J.