The People of the State of New York, v. E. Rivera, Defendant. (2026)

The branch of the omnibus motion seeking dismissal is denied, as the People have met their burden of showing due diligence and good faith under the relevant factors, albeit narrowly. See C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a).¹

Regarding the central omission, the People appear to have sought the 911 records for the first time in early November, far beyond 35 days after the case commenced. See Defense's Reply at 4. Thus, when the People received the wrong 911 records, they did not have sufficient time to obtain the correct ones before declaring ready.² The People also have not provided a record adequate to establish the extent of their pre-readiness outreach more generally. These shortcomings weigh against the People, and rather heavily so.

However, the People were able to correct the core error five days after outreach from the defense and only 10 days beyond the § 30.30 deadline overall. Under the revised Article 245, an omission swiftly corrected has diminished impact. Cf. People v. Whitney, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op. 25248, at *6 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (David, J.). To be clear, the People still should have asked for an extension of time rather than declaring ready prematurely, but this omission is not quite enough to warrant dismissal under the revised statute.

The People otherwise provided copious discovery prior to declaring ready, against which the defense's objections were comparatively minor. The People dispute that the other material sought by the defense exists, and the defense does not persuasively show otherwise, or that recent impeachment material exists for any of the officers.

Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, the initial omission and inadequate record of outreach are counterbalanced by a reasonably comprehensive production that was met with only minor objections. Thus, the certificate of compliance is valid and, as there is no argument that over 90 days elapsed otherwise, the request for dismissal is denied.

The defense's request for Huntley/Mapp/Dunaway hearings is granted. The People argue that the defendant's statement was spontaneous, see People's Resp. at 24, but do not explain why they believe this to be so. And while the People provide a reason for the approach of the police and eventual arrest of the defendant, see People's Resp. at 2, the particular sequence of events, which is always relevant to the validity of a stop, seizure, or arrest, is sufficiently murky to warrant further investigation at a hearing.

The request for other hearings is denied. There is nothing to suggest that the officers stopped a moving car. To the extent that defense requests bespoke hearings on suppression of the fruits of an illegal seizure, that concept is adequately covered by Mapp/Dunaway. The defense otherwise provides no basis for an 1194 hearing.

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

Dated: January 30, 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.   Neither party addresses the content of the 911 call or whether it was material. This decision assumes it was. The defense's request for an ex parte demonstration of prejudice is denied.

David L. Goodwin, J.