The People of the State of New York, v. C. Puliquizhpi, Defendant. (2026)

Pending is the defense's fully briefed, counseled motion to renew and reargue, pertaining to the March 30, 2026 decision and order of this Court that denied a defense request to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance and dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds. See generally People v. Puliquizhpi, 88 Misc 3d 1254(A), 2026 NY Slip Op. 50536(U) (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2026).

Upon review of the papers, record, and all prior proceedings, it is hereby ORDERED that the defense's motion is DENIED. As explained below, even if assessed under the Court's inherent authority to reconsider its own decisions—assumed to be broader than the authority conferred by C.P.L.R. § 2221—the motion does not identify an overlooked argument or material mistake of controlling law or fact, or otherwise marshal new facts/a change in law that would alter the prior determination. See Springs v. L&D L. P.C., 234 AD3d 422, 424 (1st Dept. 2025) (reargument); Singh v. QLR Five LLC, 171 AD3d 614, 614 (1st Dept. 2019) (renewal).

Regarding reargument, the defense contends that there was a challenge to the People's record of diligence, contending that a statement in the decision to the contrary—that Puliquizhpi "does not otherwise directly address the People's record of outreach"—was wrong. Defense's Rearg. Mot. at 5 (pdf pag.) (quoting Puliquizhpi, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50536(U), at *4). But page 9 of the defense's original reply brief, which is the source now cited in support of the argument having been previously advanced, contains only a short discussion of how the volume of "material relevant to the Intoxilyzer machine" should not weigh heavily in the People's favor, because the same documents are turned over in every case until the NYPD recalibrates the machines. See Defense's Original Reply at 9.

While that point is well-taken, and was considered as part of the original decision, it is not a challenge to the People's record of outreach as laid out in their responsive affirmation and papers—that is, the pre-readiness attempts made by the People to ascertain, gather, and disclose discovery unrelated to the subsequent failure of the Intoxilyzer machine. Those efforts were summarized in the decision and order, although not at length because of a lack of apparent defense challenge. See Puliquizhpi, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50536(U), at *3, 5. Thus, the cited page of the reply does not persuasively show that an argument was overlooked in the original decision.

The defense also contends that "the court overlooked the prosecution's lack of effort to ascertain discovery material before certifying the case." Defense's Mot. at 5 (pdf pag.). But the examples cited all relate to the failed Intoxilyzer—and the full sentence from the decision that the defense quotes is "Puliquizhpi does not otherwise directly address the People's record of outreach, or otherwise argue that the People's efforts outside of the narrow issue of the Intoxilyzer's failure represented a lack of due diligence." Puliquizhpi, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50536(U), at *4 (emphasis added). The decision and order otherwise acknowledged the defense's concerns over the People's outreach regarding the Intoxilyzer's failure. See id. at *3. Thus, as with the example above, the defense has not persuasively shown that anything was overlooked.

In sum, reargument is not warranted, either as a legal matter or as an exercise of discretion. See William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 (1st Dept. 1992). That request is denied.

Regarding renewal, the defense points to two favorable decisions issued by judges of coordinate jurisdiction, one of which mentioned an IDTU video depicting the machine's initial failure.¹ Starting there: the IDTU video's existence would not "change the prior determination" that the People exercised due diligence in connection with their statutory discovery obligations. Singh, 171 AD3d at 614. And assuming decisions from courts of coordinate jurisdiction could amount to a change in law, neither of the cited decisions would require or suggest a different outcome on this particular record.

The defense raises several additional arguments in reply. But that is not the proper time to raise them. Accordingly, the new arguments raised in the reply will not be considered. See Eastmore Owners Corp. v. Zelmanovich, 85 Misc 3d 143(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 50787(U), at *1 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2025). Regardless, they would not change the outcome of this decision.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the defense's motion is DENIED. Any arguments, issues, or requests for relief not specifically mentioned above have nevertheless been considered and are without merit, unavailing, or otherwise denied.

Dated: May 13, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   The People dispute whether these decisions were truly "new," as both were issued prior to the completion of supplemental briefing on the original motion, and one was issued before that supplemental briefing had even started. See People's Rearg. Resp. at 2 (pdf pag.). The defense responds that neither decision was "shared with defense counsel" until early April. Defense's Rearg. Reply at 4-5 (pdf pag.). That framing is adopted for the purpose of this decision, although it is worth noting that both rulings in question were on cases litigated by the Legal Aid Society. See Defense's Rearg. Mot. at 7, 13 (pdf pag.).

David L. Goodwin, J.