The People of the State of New York, v. M. Cifuentes, Defendant. (2026)

The motion to dismiss is denied,¹ as the People have met their burden of showing due diligence and good faith in connection with their discovery obligations, as assessed under the relevant factors. See C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a).

In particular, the People disclosed copious discovery within the statutory timeframe, including Giglio material, IDTU records, 911-call evidence, and the body-camera footage for twelve officers. See Defense's Mot., Ex. B; see also People's Resp. at 10 (relying on the voluminous discovery production). The People's production appears in line with the complexity of this case.

The People also cite their discovery outreach, which consisted of efforts spanning the months of August, September, and October. While that outreach did not yield fruit until surprisingly late in the § 30.30 period, it was ultimately successful, and the People's efforts (at least on this record) appear reasonable under the circumstances. See People's Aff. ¶¶ 4—11; id., Exs. A—G; see also People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023) (confirming that the ultimate inquiry is whether the People made reasonable efforts to comply with their discovery obligations).

The missing items, meanwhile, are comparatively limited in scope. Focusing on two: the omission of the activity log for Officer Candela ² —who, despite the defense's suggestion to the contrary, see Defense's Aff. ¶ 9(d), was not listed as a testifying officer, see Defense's Mot., Ex. F at 3—was apparently an inadvertent mistake. While the People have not yet obtained the log, there is no real dispute that they are trying to do so. And even assuming the material pertaining to the two passengers in the defendant's car was automatically discoverable in this context—the defense asserts that EMS was summoned by police, see Defense's Mot. at 13—14, but only in the unsworn memorandum of law, and does not otherwise explain whether the ICAD supports that contention or simply shows that EMS was summoned—the fact remains that the two people in question were passengers in the defendant's car. The effect of the People's failure to learn of and tender their identities is attenuated as a result.

In sum, while these omissions are material, and do not appear to have been corrected as of yet, they are not quite enough to outweigh the People's diligence and overall reasonable efforts to comply with their discovery obligations. The COC is thus valid. And as the defense raises no argument that the § 30.30 time would have expired if the People's COC were valid, the motion to dismiss is denied.

Although the defense does not ask for any alternative relief in its motion to dismiss, the People are nevertheless ordered to continue their efforts to obtain the missing materials mentioned in the defense's motion; with regard to the CCRB closing report, the People should determine whether they are in fact in possession of the underlying material, and if not, should certify to that fact.³

Regarding the omnibus motion, Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearings are granted; although the case for Mapp hearings is thin, judicial economy favors granting the hearing out of an abundance of caution. Rossi is just a specific application of Mapp and is denied as unnecessary.

Any Sandoval/Molienux/Ventimiglia/preclusion issues are referred to the trial court. Other requests not specifically mentioned are denied.

Dated: February 13, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   The version of this decision submitted for publication has been lightly redacted to remove certain identifying information.

2.   The parties do not explain who this officer is or what role the officer played in the case.

3.   The defense refers to the "testimony" of an ADA in an unrelated case, Defense's Reply at 6 (referring to Defense's Mot., Ex. A), but the transcript in question appears to be a conference on outstanding discovery issues—not, in other words, sworn testimony on the DA's office practices. Cf. Edwin E.R. v. Monique A.-O., 188 AD3d 410, 412 (1st Dept. 2020) (observing that a lawyer's arguments were "not testimony"). While the ADA was undoubtedly speaking in her capacity as an officer of the court, her statements do not bear the evidentiary weight the defense assigns to them.

David L. Goodwin, J.