PEOPLE v. TIENO (2025)

By omnibus motion, the defendant moves for an order suppressing the results of a chemical test of her breath (VTL 1194 [2] [b]); suppressing the fruits of her arrest (Dunaway v New York, 442 US200 [1978]); suppressing a noticed statement (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d [1965]); and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]).

The motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of her breath is denied as moot. The People state that the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test. The superseding information also states that the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test, and a refusal report was filed with the court at arraignments. As the People apparently do not intend to introduce the results of a chemical test conducted pursuant to VTL § 1194 (2) at trial, the motion to suppress is moot.

Next, the motion to suppress the noticed statement is granted to the extent that a Huntley-Dunaway hearing will be conducted before trial. The defendant has denied the allegations against her as well as the allegations contained in the superseding information. She also denies that she was engaged in any “unlawful or suspicious conduct,” denies that she had driven in a “dangerous erratic or otherwise suspicious manner,” and denies that there was anything “suspicious about the condition of the car.” These allegations create an issue of fact that must be resolved at a pretrial hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]).¹

Finally, the motion to preclude evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are directed to provide supplemental discovery to the defense as soon as practicable and at least fifteen calendar days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [b]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The court acknowledges that the defendant's claim that she “has not been provided with police reports or other information” about the case appears to be incorrect, as the People argue. The People have already filed a certificate of compliance (COC), and the defendant has raised no objection to the People's compliance with their discovery obligations. It may also be the case, as the People suggest, that some of the allegations are incompatible with the body-worn camera footage already provided to the defense, which defense counsel should have reviewed before filing. At this stage, however, the court cannot make that determination and thus cannot resolve the parties' contradictory factual allegations without a hearing.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.