The People of the State of New York v. Solange Sanchez, Defendant. (2025)

On February 7. 2025, Solange Sanchez ("defendant") was arraigned and charged with menacing in the second degree [PL 120.14(1)], obstructing governmental administration in the second degree [PL 195.05(01)], menacing in the third degree [PL 120.15], and harassment in the second degree [PL 240.26(1)], and released on his own recognizance. The complaint alleges that P.A., the complaining witness ("CW") informed the deponent PO Escobar that defendant brandished a knife and machete and threatened to kill her. The deponent further stated that defendant failed to obey the deponent's order to open her door when deponent repeatedly asked her to do so. The Complaint Room Screening Sheet, which was not referred to in the accusatory instrument or made a part thereof, indicates that CW called 911 and reported that defendant threatened to kill her.

On February 18, 2025, the People filed a supporting deposition ("SD") from CW, stating: "I, P.O., have read the accusatory instrument filed in this action. The facts in that instrument stated to be on information furnished by me are true to my personal knowledge." On May 8 2025, the People filed a certificate of compliance ("COC"), and statement of readiness ("SOR"). The inventory of discovery provided list created by the People noted that

"911 call records were subpoenaed by the People and subsequently the People requested that these records be expedited. At time of filing, the People are not in receipt of the 911 call records for this case. As soon as the People are in receipt, the People will turn over those records to the defense as expeditiously as possible."

On May 9, 2025, the People filed a Supplemental COC and Statement of Readiness. Appended to the supplemental COC were the 911 Radio Run, Sprint Report, NYPD Certification and Event Chronology, but not the 911 call recordings.

Defendant moves for an order finding that: the People's certificate of compliance ("COC) filed on May 8, 2025 was not proper under CPL 245.50(1) since items that were discoverable under CPL 245.20(1) were not disclosed and made available to the defense, namely the recording of the 911 call made by CW at the time of the alleged incident. Defendant also moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(e) and 30.30 on speedy trial grounds. The People contend that they are not in possession of any 911 call recording as it does not exist; they subpoenaed the 911 call records and subsequently requested that the records be produced on an expedited basis, but never received the 911 call recording. Regardless, the People contend that defendant's motion should be precluded in its entirely since it was untimely under CPL 225.20(1). The latter section provides that "all pre-trial motions shall be served or filed within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application of the defendant made prior to entry of judgment." The People further contend that they filed the COC and SOR in good faith. At the outset, this court finds that defendant's motion was timely since the court granted additional time in setting a motion schedule on May 13, 2025 and allowing defendant to submit COC challenges on June 12, 2025; defendant adhered to this schedule.

Pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(g), the prosecutor must produce "all tapes or other electronic recordings, including all electronic recordings of 911 telephone calls made or received in connection with the alleged criminal incident," CPL 245.20(1)(g). CPL 245.10(1)(a)(ii) requires that when a defendant is not in custody during the pendency of the criminal case, which is the case here, the prosecution must perform its discovery obligations within thirty-five calendar days after the defendant's arraignment on a misdemeanor complaint. The People must exercise "due diligence" and act in "good faith" in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20." CPL 245.50(1). The issue is whether the People's representation that they subpoenaed from the NYPD all the 911 call records but no recording of the 911 call made by the CW was produced is sufficient to show that the People exercised due diligence and that the recording does not in fact exist.

The People must provide the court with "sworn allegations of fact that allow the court to determine whether the prosecutor exercised due diligence." See, People v. Hutchins, 2022 NY Slip Op 50327(U), 2022 NY Misc. LEXIS 1541, *3 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2022). This court finds that the People have not provided sworn allegations of fact sufficient to demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to locate the recording of the 911 call made by CW before filing their COC on May 8, 2025. While the People assert that they requested all 911 call records via subpoena, they did not submit proof that they specifically requested the recording or followed up on it. The People did not submit a copy of the subpoena or a screenshot of any electronic message sent by the assigned ADA to the NYPD requesting the recording of the 911 call or the follow up that was performed, nor have they provided any details as to the search that was conducted. Furthermore, the fact that the subpoena for 911 records returned a Radio Run, Event Chronology, and Sprint report indicates that a 911 call was made. Accordingly, this court finds that the People have not demonstrated to the Court that they have exercised due diligence in attempting to ascertain the existence of discoverable materials and information See, People v. Ashraf, 2023 NY Slip Op 51068(U), 2023 NY Misc. LEXIS 7417, *15-17 (Crim. Ct. Rich. Co. 2023) (court found that the People did not show due diligence where they failed to produce the negative search results for the 911 calls or radio run, and did not provide any details regarding their request for the search, such as the "search parameters or details, whether the staff member actually received the instructions, questioning the witnesses to the incident on the existence of a 911 call or radio run, or what, if any, follow up was performed").

If this case were to go to trial, the People's only proof that defendant menaced the CW is testimony from CW. There is no video from the time and place of occurrence, there are no other eyewitnesses, and the police did not recover the knife or machete that the defendant is accused of using to menace the complaining witness. It seems that the most important piece of evidence would be the 911 call from a victim describing the ongoing emergency; however, the People did not obtain or turn over this vital piece of their case.

In evaluating the validity of the People's COC, the court must determine whether the People have complied with their disclosure obligations under CPL 245.20 and exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery. People v. Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1218 (4th Dept. 2024). The "filing of a valid COC is a prerequisite to the People validly stating ready and stopping the speedy trial clock under CPL 30.30." People v. Earl, 84 Misc 3d 44, 46 (2d Dept. 2024). Pursuant to CPL 30.30, dismissal is required "if the People did not file a proper COC and the speedy trial period has run." People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 214 (2023). In this case, the People's failure to comply with their disclosure obligations under CPL 245.20(1)(g) and exercise due diligence renders their COC invalid, and, therefore, the People's COC failed to stop the speedy trial clock under CPL 30.30.

The most serious charge in this case is menacing in the second degree, in violation of PL 120.14 [1], a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months. Accordingly, he People were required to declare their readiness for trial 90 days after the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]) on February 7, 2025. New York v. Banks, 2024 NY Misc. LEXIS 791, *1 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2024)

The first day counted for speedy-trial purposes is February 8, 2025, the day following the commencement of the criminal action (People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). The prosecution filed and served a COC on May 8, 2025, and an SCOC on May 09, 2025. However, as discussed above, the People's COC and SCOC were invalid and failed to toll the speedy trial clock. The speedy trial clock was tolled on May 13, 2025, when the instant motion schedule was set. There are 94 days charged from February 8,2025 to May 13,2025. Accordingly, 94 days are chargeable to the People, and their ninety-day speedy trial period has elapsed, and the motion to dismiss is granted. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: September 9, 2025

Kings County, New York

Hon. Tehilah H. Berman

Judge of the Criminal Court

Tehilah H. Berman, J.