The People of the State of New York, v. Sidney Jackson, Defendant. (2026)

On October 1, 2025, Sidney Jackson (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), was arrested and charged with Penal Law ("P.L.") § 121.11(a), criminal obstruction of breathing, and related charges. Defendant was arraigned in Bronx County Criminal Court the following day.

The Defendant moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") §§ 30.30(1)(b) and 170.30(1)(e), contending that the statutory speedy trial period has expired because the People did not comply with their discovery obligations under C.P.L. §§ 245.20(1) and 245.50(3).

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the certificate of compliance, filed December 30, 2025, is valid. Eighty-nine (89) days are chargeable to the People, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50(4)(c), 30.30(1)(b), and 170.30(1)(e) is DENIED.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2025, the Defendant was arraigned on a top charge of violating P.L. § 121.11(a), criminal obstruction of breathing, a class A misdemeanor. The charges stemmed from an incident which had allegedly occurred on September 8, 2025. The case was adjourned to November 5, 2025, for conversion and discovery compliance.

On November 5, 2025, the People were neither converted nor discovery compliant, and the case was adjourned to January 9, 2025.

On November 7, 2025, the People filed a superseding information; the superseding information was served on the defense on November 10, 2025. On December 30, 2025, the People filed and serve a certificate of compliance ("COC") and statement of readiness ("SOR").

By motion dated January 30, 2026, the Defendant moves to invalidate the certificate of compliance and dismiss the accusatory instrument, pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50(4)(c) 30.30(1)(b), and 170.30(1)(e). By motion dated February 23, 2026, the People oppose. The Defendant's reply followed on March 16, 2026.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

The prosecution must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action where, as here, the top count charged is a class A misdemeanor (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]).

The speedy trial clock is statutorily bound to the prosecution's discovery obligations under C.P.L. Article 245 (C.P.L. §§ 245.50[3] and 30.30[5]). Before the People may be deemed ready for trial, thus tolling the speedy trial clock, they must serve on the defense a vast array of case-related material in their possession from over twenty enumerated categories (C.P.L. § 245.20[1]). Discoverable material possessed by law enforcement agencies is deemed to be in the People's possession and must be furnished to the defense as part of the People's automatic discovery obligations (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]). Upon furnishing the required discovery, the People must file with the court and serve on the defense a certificate of compliance; this certificate must affirm that the prosecution exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and disclose discoverable material (C.P.L. § 245.50[1]).

Additionally, the prosecution must "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under [C.P.L. § 245.20(1)] and to cause such material to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control" (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]). The duty to furnish material delineated in C.P.L. § 245.20(1) but not in the People's custody or control is circumscribed, however, as the People are not required to subpoena material which the defense may obtain by subpoena (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]). Additionally, the COC's validity, discussed infra, is not tied to the People's efforts to obtain and disclose material outside their custody or control (People v Haagan, 253 NY3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]).

A challenge to the validity of a certificate of compliance must be raised by motion within thirty-five days of the COC's filing, unless a good cause extension is requested and granted within this time period (C.P.L. § 245.[4][c]). Such a motion must include an affirmation from the movant declaring that the movant timely conferred in good faith with the opposing party regarding the particular issues forming the basis for the motion, and that no resolution could be reached (id.).

A COC's validity depends on whether the People exercised due diligence to comply with their discovery obligations prior to the COC's filing, and it is the People's burden to demonstrate that they acted with such diligence (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]). Courts assessing due diligence must consider a range of factors, including "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of [Article 245]; the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding; the complexity of the case; whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; whether the omission was corrected; whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and, whether the prosecution's delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial" (C.P.L. § 245.50[5][a]). An analysis of the People's diligence must holistically consider all C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a) factors, with no one factor being determinative (C.P.L. § 245.50[5][b]).

DISCUSSION

I. The Disputed Items

The defense objects to the COC's validity based on two disputed items: the activity logs for three officers, and the complainant's medical records from two different hospitals.

a. The Activity Logs

The defense objects that activity logs for three officers were not disclosed until January 23, 2026, more than three weeks after the COC was filed, and that this belated disclosure indicates a lack of diligence.

The prosecution asserts that diligent efforts were made to compile and share discovery, beginning with an e-mail to the 40th Precinct discovery liaison on October 7, 2025, and including follow up e-mails to the liaison, as well as e-mails, calls and texts with the assigned detective and arresting officer on three dates in November and December 2025. Despite these efforts, the prosecution first received discovery from the NYPD on December 11, 2025, at which point the assigned prosecutor learned which officers had responded to the scene on September 8, 2025, and requested their activity logs. The assigned prosecutor requested the logs from the discovery liaison again on December 29, 2025, and instructed the assigned detective to appear at the Office of the Bronx District Attorney to provide them. The next day, the assigned prosecutor sent another e-mail request to the 40th Precinct discovery liaison, as well as to the three officers themselves. Finally, the prosecution argues, the COC identified the activity logs as outstanding pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50(1), which requires the COC to "identify the items that the prosecution is required to disclose and of which the prosecution is aware, but has been unable to obtain despite the exercise of due diligence."

b. The Complainant's Medical Records

The defense argues that the People did not exercise due diligence to obtain and disclose the complainant's medical records. Following the Defendant's arraignment on October 2, 2025, the People waited until December 18, 2025, the 77th chargeable day, to serve subpoenas for these records. Moreover, these subpoenas contained an error in the complainant's birthdate, which was not corrected until a second set of subpoenas was served on December 30, 2025, the same day the COC was filed. On January 8, 2026, the People disclosed the complainant's medical records from New York Presbyterian-Brooklyn Methodist Hospital; records from Lincoln Medical Center, however, remained outstanding as of February 23, 2026.

The prosecution acknowledges their error in the first set of issued subpoenas, but argues that pre-COC service of subpoenas for the records constitutes due diligence. Moreover, the prosecution notes that the medical records were listed on the COC as not yet available, as required by C.P.L. § 245.50(1). Finally, the prosecution argues that defense counsel failed to timely confer in good faith regarding the medical records, as required by C.P.L. § 245.50(4)(c). Prior to filing the instant motion, defense counsel sent a single e-mail to the prosecution regarding outstanding discovery, requesting only the missing activity logs (Defendant's Motion, Exhibit B; People's Opposition Exhibit 4).

II. The People's Diligence Under C.P.L. § 245.50[5]

a. Post-COC Disclosure of Third-Party Medical Records

Best practice should entail prompt efforts to procure a complainant's medical records where applicable. Nevertheless, post-COC disclosure of these records does not render the COC invalid.

The Appellate Division, First Department, recently held that procurement and disclosure of third-party records fall outside the People's pre-COC discovery duties (People v Haagan, 253 NY3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]).). C.P.L. § 245.50(1) instructs the People to file a certificate of compliance after disclosing material enumerated in C.P.L. § 245.20(1)—that is, material related to the subject matter of the case that is in the prosecution's actual or constructive possession. The People's duty with regard to case-related material outside their actual or constructive possession is governed by C.P.L. § 245.20(2); mention of C.P.L. § 245.20(2) material is notably absent from C.P.L. § 245.50(1), which lists the prerequisites for a valid certificate of compliance (id. ["C.P.L. § 245.50(1) directs that a certificate of compliance [ ] be filed when the People have made diligent, good faith efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20. This section does not mention subdivision two."]). Although C.P.L. § 245.20(2) still requires the People to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under [C.P.L. § 245.20(1)] and to cause such material to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control," in Haagan, the First Department did not find such efforts to be a precondition for a valid COC.

Moreover, the Defendant's assertion that belated disclosure of the medical records renders the COC invalid is undermined by defense counsel's failure to confer with the assigned prosecutor regarding the medical records. Annexed to both parties' filings are their e-mail communications. On January 22, 2026, defense counsel e-mailed the assigned prosecutor, stating that he could not locate the body-worn camera footage, and that the activity logs for three officers were missing; this e-mail includes no mention of the complainant's medical records. Such conferral does not satisfy defense counsel's express obligations under C.P.L. § 245.50(4)(c); prior to a challenge to the COC's validity, the movant must confer in good faith "regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge" (C.P.L. § 245.50[4][c]).

b. Assessment of C.P.L. § 245.50[5] Factors

Under a holistic analysis of the C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a) factors, the People carry their burden to demonstrate that they exercised due diligence prior to the COC's filing. The volume of belatedly disclosed material—three activity logs—is extremely minimal in comparison to the overall volume of discovery shared. Although the criminal investigation is not a particularly complex one, the People gathered and disclosed body-worn camera footage and accompanying documents from three distinct events, including officers' initial response, the Defendant's arrest, and a subsequent visit to the complainant's home. The outstanding nature of the activity logs was both flagged by the assigned prosecutor in the COC, as required by C.P.L. § 245.50(1), and promptly remedied. Nothing about the content of the logs suggests their delayed disclosure resulted in prejudice to the defense, or impeded defense counsel's ability to investigate the case or prepare for trial.

As such, the COC, dated December 30, 2025, is VALID.

THE CPL § 30.30 CALCULATION

The first day counted for speedy trial purposes is the day following the commencement of the criminal action, October 3, 2025 (People v Morrison, 231 NYS 3d 922 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]). The speedy trial clock was tolled with the filing of the certificate of compliance on December 30, 2025 (October 3, 2025 — December 30, 2025 = 89 days).

Eighty-nine (89) days are chargeable to the People.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §§ 245.50(4)(c), 30.30(1)(b), and 170.30(1)(e) is DENIED.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.

Dated: May 13, 2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Deidra R. Moore, J.C.C.

Deidra R. Moore, J.