PEOPLE v. RADHAKRISHNAN (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Melissa A. Loehr, J.), dated October 15, 2025.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was 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 insofar as appealed from.

The defendant was indicted on one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2–a][a] ) and one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3] ).  In September 2024, the People filed a certificate of compliance (hereinafter the September 2024 COC) and a statement of readiness for trial.  Thereafter, in June 2025, the People disclosed additional records to the defendant including, inter alia, certain calibration and maintenance records for a breathalyzer machine used in connection with the defendant's arrest (hereinafter the supplemental discovery) and filed a second supplemental certificate of compliance (hereinafter the June 2025 COC).  Thereafter, the defendant moved, among other things, pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People failed to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action.  The defendant contended, inter alia, that the September 2024 COC filed by the People was invalid based upon the People's failure to disclose the supplemental discovery until June 2025 and that, by that date, the time for the People to be ready for trial (hereinafter the speedy trial time) had expired.  The People opposed.  In an order dated October 15, 2025, the County Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendant's motion and directed dismissal of the indictment.  The People appeal.

Where a defendant moves pursuant to CPL 30.30(a)(1) to dismiss an indictment on the ground that the People failed to exercise due diligence with regard to disclosure and, thus, did not file a valid certificate of compliance (see CPL 245.50[1] ), the burden is on the People to show that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the certificate of compliance, despite the belated or missing disclosure (see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 213;  People v Serrano, 234 AD3d 879, 882).

CPL article 245 governs the People's disclosure obligations and the filing of a certificate of compliance.  As amended in 2025, CPL 245.50(1) provides that the People must exercise “due diligence” and “act[ ] in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required.”  Subdivision 5 of CPL 245.50 identifies the relevant factors for a court to consider in determining whether the People exercised due diligence, including:  the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article;  the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery 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 (see id. § 245.50[5] ).

Pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(s), in any prosecution alleging a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, all records of calibration, certification, inspection, repair or maintenance of machines and instruments utilized to perform any scientific tests and experiments, including but not limited to any test of a person's breath, blood, urine, or saliva, for the period of six months prior and six month after such test was conducted must be disclosed.  The time periods for disclosure set out in CPL 245.10(1) shall not apply to the disclosure of the aforementioned records created six months after a test was conducted, but such disclosure shall be made as soon as practicable and in any event, the earlier of 15 days following receipt or 15 days before the first scheduled trial date (see id. § 245.20[1][s] ).

Although the People correctly contend that the amendments to CPL article 245, which were effective on August 7, 2025, applied to all pending criminal matters (see L 2025, ch 56, part LL;  People v Badji, 36 NY3d 393, 399), including the defendant's motion in this case, we nonetheless affirm the determination of the County Court.  Here, even considering the defendant's motion in the context of the 2025 amendments under CPL article 245, the People failed to exercise due diligence with regard to their disclosure, and thus, the court correctly concluded that the September 2024 COC was not valid and that the speedy trial time had expired by the time the June 2025 COC was filed.

Here, the People failed to show that the September 2024 COC was filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence.  With respect to the factors under the amended CPL article 245, the People's contention before the County Court that there was no prejudice to the defendant was conclusory and did not address the defendant's argument that the defense strategy was significantly impaired by the late disclosure of the supplemental discovery.  The People also never provided any explanation as to why they previously had not disclosed the supplemental discovery.  On appeal, the People fail to argue lack of prejudice to the defendant or the applicability or inapplicability of any of the other factors under CPL article 245, as amended (see CPL 245.50[5][a];  People v Bay, 41 NY3d at 213–214;  People v Pierre, 244 AD3d 1139).

Accordingly, as the People failed to establish that they exercised due diligence and, thus, the September 2024 COC was not valid and the speedy trial time had expired by the time the People filed the June 2025 COC, the County Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment.

The People's remaining contentions are without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., TAYLOR, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.