The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Roman Yepez, Defendant. (2026)

In an omnibus motion, the defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and dismissing this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e); suppressing evidence (Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, 645 [1961]; People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965], Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1978]); precluding unnoticed statements and identification testimony (CPL 710.30 [3]); and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial (People v Sandoval, 43 NY2d 371 [1974], People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]).

The court decides the motion as follows.

I. Relevant Facts & Procedural History

The defendant is charged with PL § 130.52 and related offenses. He was arrested on January 4, 2026, and arraigned the same day on a criminal complaint. At arraignments, the People provided statement notice pursuant to CPL § 710.30. The defendant was released on his own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to January 7, 2026, for conversion and a Crawford hearing.

On January 7, 2026, the People filed and served a supporting deposition, and the complaint was deemed converted. After conducting the Crawford hearing, the court adjourned the case to January 23, 2026.

On January 23, 2026, the People produced initial discovery to the defense. The initial production included court and NYPD paperwork and body-worn camera (BWC) footage for all officers. The court adjourned the case to February 6, 2026.

On February 6, the court adjourned the case to March 31, 2026.

On March 26, the People produced additional discovery. This second production included law enforcement disciplinary records, text messages between the defendant and the complainant (along with translations from Spanish), and the People's notes from interviews with the complainant.

On March 27, 2026, the People then filed and served a COC and certificate of readiness (COR). The COC stated that the People had not produced "end of tour activity logs" because they were not within their possession despite the exercise of due diligence.

On March 31, 2026, the People answered ready for trial. Defense counsel requested a good-cause extension of their deadline for a COC challenge, and the court extended the deadline to May 11, 2026 and adjourned to that date.

On April 6, 2026, the People produced additional discovery. This third production included end of tour activity logs for all officers and a "negative search results document" from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit. The People had requested the 911 call from NYPD on January 8, 2026, and had specified in their request that the 911 call came from the defendant, not the complainant.

On April 16, 2026, defense counsel emailed the People, inquiring about the 911 call and the negative search results document and noting that he believed his client had called 911.

On April 20, 2026, the People responded via email and stated that they would submit another request for any 911 call recordings, and on April 21, 2026, they submitted the request.

On May 11, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion. On May 26, 2026, the People filed their opposition. On June 2, 2026, the defense filed a reply.

II. COC Challenge

The defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) invalid and dismissing the case pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1) (b) and CPL § 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, the defense argues that the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations before filing their COC in that they failed to disclose a 911 call recording and end of tour activity logs. The People oppose, arguing that they exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

While 911 calls are undisputedly discoverable, the People's failure to produce them before filing their COC in this case is at most a minor factor in assessing their diligence. The People promptly requested the 911 calls, and they specifically took steps to ensure that their request would return any calls made by the defendant. Due to a delay on NYPD's part, the People had not received a response when they filed their COC. The fact that NYPD was unable to locate any recordings is not relevant to the People's diligence. The defense's claim that the NYPD's negative search result document is "a false document" that somehow reflects dishonesty on the People's part is far-fetched. The document simply states that a search was conducted by the Tapes and Records Department for responsive materials with negative results; it does not purport to state that a call was never made or recorded. If the recording is ultimately determined to be lost or destroyed, the defense can move for appropriate sanctions.

Similarly, the end-of-tour activity logs are discoverable, but the People's failure to obtain and produce them prior to filing their COC is a minor factor in assessing the People's diligence. The People requested and received NYPD materials promptly, including in-progress activity logs, and they produced the initial logs less than three weeks after the defendant's arraignment. Before filing their COC, the People identified that the end-of-tour activity logs were missing and took steps to obtain them. While it would have been better practice for the People to wait for a response to their follow-up request before filing their COC, they promptly remedied the error upon receiving the documents. Further, the People would not have had any reason to believe that the end-of-tour logs would differ significantly from the in-progress logs, and indeed the defense has not claimed that the documents contained any significant information.

Considering "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and weighing all relevant factors (CPL 245.50 [5]), the court finds that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide" discoverable materials (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). The People made significant and prompt efforts to obtain and produce discovery. While this case is not complex, the amount of missing discovery is minimal in relation to the volume of discovery actually produced. The People's explanations for the non-disclosures that the defense has raised are reasonable. The fact that 911 recordings have not been produced is attributable to the NYPD's backlog (and here, perhaps a recordkeeping failure), not a lack of diligence by the People. While the precise reason for the delay in producing the end-of-tour activity logs is unclear, the documents do not appear to be significant, and the People promptly took corrective action. The People had no reason to believe that delayed production of the end-of-tour activity logs would affect the defense's ability to prepare for trial.

The People's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED (CPL 245.50 [5] [a], [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 212).

III. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an A misdemeanor 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]). The parties agree that the People must be charged 82 days from the defendant's arraignment on January 4, 2026, through the filing of the People's COC and COR on March 26, 2026.

No additional time is chargeable. The People's COR was valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since that date.

The defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

IV. Motions to Suppress & Preclude Evidence

The motion to suppress is granted to the extent that a Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearing is ordered. The parties' allegations create an issue of fact that must be resolved at a hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]). The motion to preclude is denied because the defense has not identified any unnoticed statements or identification evidence subject to preclusion. However, the People are directed to notify the defendant as soon as practicable upon deciding to use any unnoticed statement for impeachment or rebuttal purposes, and the defense may renew the motion upon receiving such notification (see CPL 710.40 [2], [4]).

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 days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [b]).

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: June 9, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.