The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Keith Thrower, Defendant. (2026)

The defense first moves this court to find the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and to dismiss this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). The People oppose, arguing that the motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) and that they exercised due diligence, regardless of any lapses.

I. Relevant Facts

On October 25, 2025, the defendant was arrested and charged with violating VTL § 1192 (3) for allegedly driving while intoxicated. He was arraigned the same day on a criminal complaint, and the case was adjourned to December 8, 2025, for conversion.

On December 8, 2025, the People filed and served a supporting deposition, and the complaint was deemed an information. The People were not ready for trial, and the case was adjourned to January 20, 2026, for trial.

On January 6, 2026, the People filed and served a certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR). The COC stated that the 911 calls, radio run, and sprint report had not been disclosed because they were not in the People's actual possession despite diligent efforts.

On January 20, 2026, the People stated that they were ready for trial, and the case was adjourned to February 18, 2026, for trial.

On February 18, 2026, the defense requested a motion schedule for an omnibus motion, and the case was adjourned to April 16, 2026, for decision.

On April 9, 2026, the People produced the 911 call, radio run, and sprint report to the defense and filed a supplemental COC (SCOC).

On April 16, 2026, a decision was issued on the omnibus motion, and the case was adjourned to May 13, 2026.

On May 12, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion challenging the People's COC on the basis of the belated production of the 911 call, radio run, and sprint report.

On May 13, 2026, the court set a motion schedule and adjourned the case to June 9, 2026.

On May 21, 2026, the People filed an opposition. The People argue that the motion must be denied because it is untimely and does not contain an affirmation of conferral and because the People exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

On May 29, 2026, defense counsel filed a reply to the People's opposition. For the first time in reply, defense counsel argues that the People not only filed their COC without first producing the 911 call, radio run, and sprint report, but also failed to produce those materials promptly upon receipt. Defense counsel notes that the certification for those materials is dated January 14, 2026.

II. The COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will typically 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, if the motion satisfies those requirements, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Finally, 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]).

Here, the defense has not satisfied the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (c). Under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), a COC challenge must be filed "within thirty-five days of the service of the certificate" and must include an affirmation that the defense "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." The COC challenge before the court does not satisfy either of these requirements. The motion was filed on May 12, 2026, which is 126 days after the People's COC was filed and served. The defense does not claim that service was improper or deny receiving the COC. The defense did not request a good cause extension and has not shown a material change in circumstances (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i], [ii]). The motion also does not include an affirmation that defense counsel conferred with the prosecution (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [emphasis added]). There is no indication in the record that defense counsel attempted to confer with the People regarding the subsequently disclosed materials, despite the People's express acknowledgement in their COC that the materials identified in the defense motion remained outstanding. Separately, the defense argues in their reply that the People were not ready for trial because, after receiving the materials around January 14, 2026 (the exact date is unclear) the People did not produce the materials to the defense until April 9, 2026. To the extent this argument may properly be raised for the first time in reply, it is foreclosed by People v Radford (237 AD3d 1511, 1512-1513 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied, 43 NY3d 1048 [2025]).

The COC challenge is therefore DENIED, and the People's January 6, 2026 COC is deemed valid.

III. CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of up to 364 days 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]).

From the defendant's arraignment on October 25, 2025, to the People's filing of the COC and COR on January 6, 2026, 73 days are chargeable to the People. No additional time is chargeable. The People's January 6, 2026 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 5, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.