People of the State of New York v. Erica Crawford, Defendant. (2026)

The defendant is charged in this indictment with Criminal Contempt in the First Degree and other related offenses in connection with incidents alleged to have occurred on or about December 8 and 10, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1-2). The defendant moves by notice of motion filed on July 31, 2026, to challenge the People's certificate of compliance (COC) pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) sections 245.20 and 245.50, and to declare the People's statement of readiness (SOR) illusory (NYSCEF Doc No. 9).¹ The People filed opposition on August 21, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc No. 11). The defense filed a reply on August 28, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc No. 12).

Relevant Background

This case commenced on December 10, 2025, with the filing of the felony complaint in Criminal Court (see CPL §§ 1.20[17]; 100.05). On December 11, 2025, the defendant was arraigned on the felony complaint. On March 23, 2026, the instant indictment was filed and the matter was subsequently transferred to Supreme Court (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1-2, Indictment).

The defendant was arraigned on the indictment in Supreme Court on April 7, 2026, at which time the defense requested inspection of the grand jury minutes. Upon the People providing the grand jury materials to the court on or about June 4, 2026, another justice of this court rendered a decision dated July 27, 2026, finding the grand jury minutes legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged.

On June 16, 2026, the People served and filed a COC, SOR, and Inventory of Discovery (NYSCEF Doc No. 6). By notice sent to all counsel on July 2, 2026, a Virtual Discovery Conference (VDC), pursuant to CPL 245.35(2), was scheduled for July 14, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. Defense counsel failed to appear for the VDC on the scheduled date and time. Later that date, after the court initiated contact, Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS) informed the court that the case had been reassigned. The VDC was not held in this matter due to the unavailability of newly assigned defense counsel.

By email dated July 15, 2026, defense counsel requested an extension to challenge the People's COC to July 31, 2026. The defense explained, among other reasons, that an extension was sought because the case was recently transferred to defense counsel from another attorney within the same office and counsel had not had a sufficient opportunity to complete review of the discovery. The court granted a 10-day extension from July 21 to July 31, 2026, to challenge the COC.

The defense first contacted the People by email on July 27, 2026 at 4:54 p.m., inquiring about the Notice/Disclosure Form for Initial Discovery (NDF), civilian witness list along with contact information and designations as to which will be called at hearings or trial (see Defense Exhibit B). The defense also requested that the prosecution reshare access to the discovery drive because counsel believed the "discovery paralegals may have missed a bulk of the discovery when they uploaded it to [the BDS] system and [counsel does not] have access to it as a result" (id.). The People responded at 5:10 p.m. that evening with a link to view discovery, that a contact number for the complainant would be provided on the next date, and that all officers should be listed in the NDF (see NYSCEF Doc No. 9).

On July 29, 2026 at 7:34 p.m., defense counsel notified the People via email that counsel had reviewed the discovery and identified the following as missing:

1. 911 call (but I did receive the icad)

2. Radio runs

3. Grand jury minutes are completely redacted - would you unredact?

4. Activity log for PO Finn

5. BWC audit trail for PO Finn

6. Giglio & underlying for PO Finn

7. List of civilian witnesses and contact info

8. List of officers and designation as to whether they are witness

(Defense Exhibit D). On July 31, 2026 at 1:26 p.m., the defense filed the instant motion.

The defendant now challenges the COC arguing that the People failed to disclose (a) 911 calls, (b) radio runs, (c) unredacted grand jury minutes, (d) list of civilian witnesses and contact information, (e) list of officers with designations as to which are potential witnesses, and (f) Notice/Disclosure Form for Initial Discovery. The People oppose the motion arguing that the defense waived its challenge "because defense counsel, in violation of CPL § 245.50(4)(c), did not diligently confer with the People regarding raised discovery issues" (People's Memo at 6).²

On August 19, 2026, the People filed a supplemental COC indicating that 911 calls, radio runs, grand jury minutes, witness addendum, and an NDF were disclosed (NYSCEF Doc No. 10).

Discussion

New York's criminal discovery statute first requires the parties to confer in good faith regarding the specific materials claimed to be outstanding (see CPL § 245.50[4]). Thus, when a party is aware of a potential defect or deficiency related to a COC, the party in receipt of disclosures must "notify or alert the opposing party" of the defect (CPL § 245.50[4][b]). To demonstrate compliance with the good-faith conferral requirement, the challenging party must file an affirmation explaining that the "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 the efforts to obtain the missing discovery or resolve discovery issues were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached (CPL § 245.50[4][c]).

The gravamen of the dispute here is whether the defense's efforts made on July 27 and 29 sufficiently satisfied the good-faith conferral requirement prior to filing the instant motion on July 31.

Here, the People filed a COC and SOR on June 16, 2026, which required the defense to file any challenge by July 21, 2026 (see CPL § 245.50[4][c] [35 days to challenge from service of COC]). Although a VDC was scheduled to be held on July 14, 2026, the conference was not held because of defense counsel's unavailability following reassignment of the case. The defense was afforded an additional 10 days to review discovery and challenge the COC.

Defense counsel did not contact the People, however, until July 27, 2026, 41 days after the COC was filed and 4 days before the extended deadline. That communication concerned only the NDF, civilian witness information and witness designations, and counsel's concern that the defense may not have properly uploaded the previously shared discovery to its own internal system. Within 16 minutes, the People responded, reshared access to the discovery files, and advised that the complainant's contact number is forthcoming. The remaining grounds raised in the motion were first brought to the People's attention at 7:34 p.m. on July 29, 2026. The defense then filed this motion less than 42 hours later and with only one intervening business day.

Based upon the circumstances presented in this case, the court is not convinced that the communications initiated by the defense constitute a good-faith conferral within the meaning of Article 245. Although there is no statutory minimum period of time for the parties to engage in the conferral process, the conferral "must be 'sufficient to elicit the parties' respective positions in the dispute and to establish that a resolution could not be reached' " (People v Rosario, 88 Misc 3d 1237[A], *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026], quoting People v Calvin Y., 86 Misc 3d 1270[A], *2 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]). Initiating conferral for the first time after the initial 35-day timeline had elapsed and during the very week that the deadline to challenge the COC expires is neither aligned with the spirit of Article 245 nor its clear intent. Instead, the belated efforts by the defense in this case demonstrate that the defense raised "discovery issues at a point that is too late for the People to remedy" (People v Benali, 88 Misc 3d 1228[A], *3 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2026]).

Despite the statute requiring active and prompt pursuit of a resolution of discovery issues where the defense believes discovery to be incomplete, the communications here were far from prompt or immediate. The defense did not explain in its moving papers why they did not review discovery and notify the prosecution of any defects in the 30-day period from the date the COC was filed, June 16, to the date defense submits their office went on strike, July 16 (see Defense Aff ¶¶ 7-10). Moreover, the papers do not indicate that the People were unresponsive or uncooperative when contacted, that the parties reached an impasse, or that reasonable accommodations regarding outstanding discovery could not be reached (see CPL § 245.50[4]; People v Whitney, 88 Misc 3d 905, 914 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]). The papers reflect the opposite — that when apprised, the People took prompt remedial action to respond and correct any deficiencies (Whitney, 88 Misc 3d at 914 [defendant failed "to show that other efforts to resolve the issues were unsuccessful and no accommodation could be reached; indeed, just the opposite is true"]). To the extent that the defense attempts to cure their affirmation's deficiencies in their reply to the People's opposition, reply papers may not be used to supply additional threshold facts which should have been raised in the initial papers (see e.g. People v Mullings, 146 AD3d 816, 817 [2d Dept 2017] [claims improperly raised for first time in reply]).

Based on the foregoing, the defendant failed to satisfy the threshold good-faith conferral requirement pursuant to CPL section 245.50(4) (see Benali, 88 Misc 3d 1228(A), *2-3 [first conferral two months after COC filed and less than a week before COC challenge deadline insufficient]). The People are hereby reminded of their continuing duty to disclose pursuant to CPL section 245.60.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant's motion challenging the People's COC is denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Dated: September 22, 2026

Brooklyn, NY

Hon. Joanne D. Quiñones, J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The defendant's notice of motion does not specify dismissal on speedy trial grounds among its requested relief, but defense counsel's affirmation refers to speedy trial calculations (see Defense Aff ¶¶ 5, 9, 16; Defense Memo at 12). To the extent that the defendant seeks dismissal on speedy trial grounds, that relief must be denied. Defense counsel's affirmation concludes that "[a] total of 155 days are chargeable to the People as of the time of this filing" (Defense Aff ¶ 16), but falls short of asserting that the People have exceeded the six-month speedy trial deadline for felonies set forth in CPL section 30.30(1)(b).

2.   The page numbers referenced for the People's Memo are references to the page numbers assigned by the NYSCEF site. Thus, People's Memo at 6 refers to page 6 of 17 in the People's opposition.

Joanne D. Quiñones, J.