The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Osorio, Defendant. (2026)

The defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) invalid and dismissing the case pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1) (b) and CPL § 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, the defense argues that the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations before filing their COC in that they failed to disclose 911 calls and related paperwork, a radio run, medical records, expert witness information, activity logs for five officers, body-worn camera (BWC) footage for four officers, and law enforcement disciplinary records. The People oppose, arguing that the defendant's motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), that much of the allegedly outstanding discovery does not exist or is not in their possession, and that regardless of any discovery defects, they exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

The court decides the motion as follows.

I. Relevant Facts & Procedural History

The defendant is charged with PL § 120.00 for allegedly striking the complainant on the head on December 18, 2025. Immediately after the incident, the complainant spoke with several officers near the scene, but those officers did not fill out a complaint report regarding the incident. On December 22, 2025, the complainant sought medical attention at an emergency room for a headache and disorientation. While at the hospital, the complainant reported the assault from December 18, 2025, and NYPD Officer John Mineo responded to the hospital. Subsequently, NYPD Detective Jay Poggi was assigned to investigate the case. Detective Poggi identified the defendant as the perpetrator, and on January 7, 2026, the defendant was arrested.

Also January 7, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a criminal complaint and released on his own recognizance. The case was adjourned to February 17, 2026, for conversion of the complaint.

The People then began their efforts to gather discovery. By January 9, 2026, the People had received and began reviewing NYPD paperwork. On January 12, 2026, the People spoke with PO Mineo and Detective Poggi to request additional materials, including BWC footage, and the People requested 911 and radio run recordings, as well as related paperwork, from NYPD's Tapes and Records Department. On January 13, 2026, the People interviewed the complainant and obtained her hospital discharge paperwork, as well as a HIPAA release for her full medical records. On January 15, 2026, the People submitted a referral to their Litigation Support Unit (LSU) for assistance in obtaining certain outstanding materials. On January 20, 2026, the People followed up with LSU about BWC footage and began drafting a subpoena for medical records. Also on January 20, 2026, the People produced initial discovery to the defense.

On January 21, 2026, LSU informed the assigned ADA that they believed that there was no BWC in this case.

On February 17, 2026, the case was on for conversion. The People filed and served a supporting deposition, and the case was then adjourned to April 8, 2026, for trial.

On February 24 and 25, 2026, the People contacted the officers who spoke with the complainant on December 18, 2025, to request any BWC footage and activity logs. After receiving initial BWC footage, the People reviewed it to identify additional officers involved in the case and contacted those officers. Over the next two and a half weeks, the People also followed up with several officers to obtain any outstanding materials.

On March 10, 2026, the People produced additional discovery and filed a COC and certificate of readiness (COR).

On April 3, 2026, the defense emailed the People a list of potentially outstanding discovery. In relevant part, the defense requested 911 calls and related paperwork, the radio run, medical records, expert witness information, BWC footage, activity logs, and law enforcement disciplinary records.

That same day, the People responded via email stating that they had not yet received the 911 calls, radio runs, or related paperwork from NYPD Tapes and Records. They also stated that they had not received the medical records and, consequently, had not retained an expert witness to interpret those records. Regarding BWC footage, the People explained that much of it did not exist. Police Officer Mineo did not have any BWC footage; Detective Poggi did not wear a BWC because he was a detective; and Officers Sunchauri and Meaney played only limited roles in the investigation and likely did not activate their BWCs. Officer Atriano's BWC had already been produced. Similarly with respect to activity logs, the People explained that Officers Sunchauri and Meaney and Detective Poggi likely did not have additional logs. The People stated that they would follow up with Officers Atriano and Kats to obtain their activity logs. Finally, the People acknowledged that they had not produced law enforcement disciplinary records due to an oversight.

Also on April 3, 2026, the People produced the disciplinary records and contacted PO Kats about his activity log.

On April 8, 2026, the case was on for trial. The People answered ready, and the defense objected to the People's readiness due to alleged discovery violations. That same day, the People received 911 calls, radio runs, and related paperwork from NYPD, and produced those materials, along with PO Kats' activity log.

On April 14, 2026, the defense filed this motion.

On May 11, 2026, the case was on for trial, and the People filed their opposition to the motion. The court set a reply date for the defense and adjourned to June 8, 2026, for decision. Also on May 11, PO Atriano informed the People that he did not have an activity log related to this case.

On May 26, 2026, the defense filed their reply to the People's opposition.

II. COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50255[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). If the court finds that any discovery violations occurred, the court will then examine the violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]).

1. Defense Compliance with CPL § 245.50 (4)

The defense's conferral efforts were sufficient. The court does not perceive any basis to question defense counsel's good faith (see People v G.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op. 50832(U), 2026 WL 1529939, *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]), and the parties conferred sufficiently to clarify the points of disagreement (People v Calvin Y., 86 Misc 3d 1270[A], *2 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]). Also, defense counsel's conferral email, which was sent 24 days after the People filed their COC, was not untimely (see G.Y., 2026 WL 1529939 at *1). Twenty-four days was not an unreasonable time to conduct a thorough discovery review (see id., fn 1).

2. The People's Compliance with CPL § 245.20

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because they failed to produce 911 calls and related paperwork, a radio run, medical records, expert witness information, activity logs for five officers, body-worn camera (BWC) footage for four officers, and law enforcement disciplinary records. The People oppose.

First, the 911 call, radio run, and related paperwork are discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e], [g]), and the materials were constructively within the People's possession when they filed their COC (see CPL 245.20 [2]). However, the People's failure to provide these materials before filing their COC is only a minor negative factor in assessing the People's diligence. The People requested the materials promptly, and the primary fault for the delay lies with NYPD. Upon receiving the materials, they produced them to the defense immediately.

Second, the medical records are not within the People's actual or constructive possession, and they are therefore not part of the People's initial discovery obligation (People v Haggan, 253 NYS3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]). Similarly, because the People have neither determined whether they will call an expert witness nor retained one, materials and information relating to any prospective expert witness are not within their actual or constructive possession.

Third, the People have largely satisfied their obligations regarding activity logs. The People have established that additional activity logs for Detective Poggi and PO Atriano probably do not exist, and the defense has not provided any reason to conclude otherwise. The People made significant efforts to obtain PO Kats' activity log, and they obtained and produced it promptly after receiving defense counsel's conferral email. Despite having received the document, the defense has not identified any significant information contained therein. As to Officers Sunchauri and Meaney, the People have established that activity logs, if they exist at all, are unlikely to contain any material information.¹ However, the People have not established that they contacted either officer to inquire about those logs, as they stated they would do in conferral. The People are therefore ORDERED to contact both officers promptly upon receipt of this order to inquire whether they have activity logs or BWC footage related to this case, and, within two weeks of the date of this order, to inform the defense of their findings.

Fourth, the People have likewise established that the allegedly outstanding BWC footage either does not exist or is unlikely to exist. Detectives typically do not wear BWCs. Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that Detective Poggi possessed any BWC footage related to this case. Likewise, officers generally do not activate BWCs when speaking with complainants receiving medical treatment in hospitals. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that PO Mineo possessed any BWC footage relating to this case. For Officers Sunchauri and Meaney, their limited involvement in this case makes it unlikely that they would possess any BWC footage related to it. Nevertheless, the People are directed to inquire (see supra).

Finally, the parties agree that the law enforcement disciplinary records are discoverable and were in the People's possession (see CPL 245.20 [1] [k] [iv]). However, the failure to disclose these records was an inadvertent error, not seemingly indicative of any broader deficiency in the People's efforts.

3. The People's Diligence and Reasonableness

The court now considers the People's minor discovery violations in context of their overall efforts. Even where the People have not satisfied all of their discovery obligations, their COC will not be invalidated where they have "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material" (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 211). In determining whether the People acted with due diligence, the court must consider:

[T]he efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with [their discovery obligations]; 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.

(CPL 245.50 [5] [a]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 212).

Here, the People made prompt and substantial efforts to comply with their discovery obligations. They began their efforts immediately after the defendant's arraignment, and within two weeks they had produced a significant amount of discovery. Their efforts to identify and obtain missing BWC footage are especially noteworthy. Despite receiving initial responses from NYPD and LSU suggesting that there was no BWC footage, the assigned ADA reviewed the DD5s, which referenced BWC footage, and continued efforts to identify officers who may have activated their BWCs while interacting with the complainant. The ADA then reviewed the resulting footage to identify additional officers who might possess relevant footage.

Although the criminal allegations in this case are relatively straightforward, the police investigation involved multiple groups of officers at different stages of the matter. The first officers on the scene did not take a report, and their BWC footage and activity logs were not automatically linked to the case. Another officer later responded to the hospital, Detective Poggi subsequently conducted the investigation, and a separate group of officers effectuated the arrest. Consequently, the discovery was more voluminous and less centralized than is typical for a misdemeanor assault prosecution.

Despite these complications, the discovery produced was largely complete, and the explanations for any lapses are reasonable. When the People filed their COC, the outstanding materials were the 911 calls and related paperwork, radio run, a single activity log, and law enforcement disciplinary records. Though some of these materials are significant, the 911 calls and radio run were delayed because of an NYPD Tapes and Records backlog, and the disciplinary records were an inadvertent omission. Both were promptly rectified. As to the activity log, the People had requested it multiple times before filing their COC, and the defense has provided no reason to believe it contains any significant information.

Considering "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and weighing all relevant factors (CPL 245.50 [5]), the court finds that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide" discoverable materials (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). The People's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED.

III. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an A misdemeanor and no felonies, the People must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]). The parties agree that the People must be charged 62 days from the defendant's arraignment on January 7, 2026, through the filing of the People's COC and COR on March 10, 2026.

No additional time is chargeable. The People's COR was valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since that date.

The defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: June 8, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Contrary to defense counsel's assertion, the People's conferral email does not "indicate . . . that these officers took the complainant's initial statement in this case" (defense reply, 6). Rather, the People stated only that the complainant "spoke to them during the process of making the complaint" (defense affirmation, exhibit C). That representation is not inconsistent with the People's subsequent assertion that these officers were merely two of many officers who spoke with the complainant, did not take a statement from the complainant, and are not identified anywhere in the NYPD paperwork relating to this case (People's affirmation, 21-22).

Ilona B. Coleman, J.