The People of the State of New York v. Almir Lekovic, Defendant. (2026)

By written decision dated January 5, 2026, this court denied the defendant's motion to invalidate the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC"). The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated that any of the police misconduct disclosed as potential impeachment material bore a factual nexus to the subject matter of the case, to the charged incident, or to any potential defense. Because no such factual nexus was shown, the People were not required to obtain or disclose the underlying disciplinary records.

The defendant now moves to reargue, asserting that the court misapplied the law in light of People v Coley, 240 AD3d 122 (2d Dept 2025). The defendant contends that Coley requires disclosure of underlying disciplinary records because such records may relate to credibility whom the People have designated as potential witnesses.

The People oppose, arguing that the defendant merely repeats the same arguments previously raised and rejected, and that Coley is distinguishable.

A motion to reargue under CPLR 2221(d) lies only when the movant identifies matters of fact or law that the court overlooked or misapprehended in deciding a prior motion. It is not a vehicle to relitigate issues previously raised, nor to advance arguments identical to those already considered and rejected.

The defendant has not identified any such oversight or misapprehension.

The defendant's motion rests entirely on People v Coley, but that reliance is misplaced. Coley addressed a fundamentally different question: whether the People may satisfy their discovery obligations by providing only summary disclosure records regarding police misconduct, when the misconduct was already known to be relevant because the officer in question was a central witness, his testimony was material to the prosecution and the misconduct at issue had a direct and established connection to his credibility in the context of that case.

Under those circumstances, the court held that the underlying records were discoverable because they bore directly on the credibility of the police witness the People intended to call.

Coley did not hold that the underlying disciplinary records must be disclosed for every officer who may testify. Nor did it eliminate the statutory requirement that impeachment material must be relevant to the subject matter of the case.

Although the officers in question here have been designated as potential witnesses, the defendant has failed to identify any specific officer, any specific act of misconduct, or any specific connection between the alleged misconduct and the charged incident, the investigation, any individual officer's role in this case, or any potential defense.

This is the same deficiency the court identified in its January 5, 2026, decision.

In both the original motion and the present motion to reargue, the defendant's argument remains entirely abstract: Because the officers may testify that any misconduct they have ever been accused of must be disclosed in full. That is not the law. Article 245 requires disclosure of impeachment material relevant to the subject matter of the case, not wholesale production of disciplinary files for every potential police witness.

The defendant has not shown that the alleged misconduct bears on any contested issue in this case or on any officer's role in the case.

The defendant's reliance on Coley overlooks several critical distinctions. In Coley, the ruling was tied to the specific relevance of that officer's disciplinary history and his credibility was directly at issue. Here, the defendant has not shown that any officer's credibility is meaningfully implicated in this case. Coley did not hold that the underlying disciplinary records must be disclosed absent a showing of relevance. The defendant has not identified any factual dispute, investigative irregularity, or defense theory that would make the underlying disciplinary records relevant.

The defendant's reading of Coley would require the People to obtain and disclose the complete disciplinary files of every officer listed as potential witnesses in every case, regardless of relevance. Nothing in Coley supports such a sweeping interpretation.

Because the defendant has not demonstrated that the court overlooked or misapprehended any controlling principle of law or fact, reargument is denied.

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.

March 10, 2026

GARY F. MIRET, J.S.C.

Gary F. Miret, J.