The People of the State of New York, v. Vincent Beeker, Defendant. (2026)

By motion dated February 27, 2026, defendant moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30, arguing that because the People's certificate of compliance ("CoC") is invalid and the accompanying statement of readiness ("SoR") is illusory, the prosecution has exceeded the statutorily prescribed speedy trial time of 90 days.

Further, by separate notice of omnibus motion, defendant contemporaneously moves for omnibus relief, including requesting an order suppressing identification evidence pursuant to CPL §§ 710.20 (6), (4) and 710.60 or, alternatively granting Huntley/Dunaway and Mapp/Dunaway hearings; granting a pre-trial voluntariness hearing concerning statements sought to be used only on cross-examination of defendant pursuant to CPL §§ 60.45, 710.20 (3) and 710.40 and pursuant to CPL §§ 60.45 (2), 710.20 (3); precluding the admission of evidence pursuant to CPL § 710.30; directing the People to comply with their disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL §§ 245.55 (2) and (3) and to preserve and disclose complete records of the investigation and prosecution of the case, including 911 calls and police recordings; requiring the prosecution to comply with Brady/Vilardi requests; directing the People to file a Bill or Particulars; directing the prosecution to file an additional CoC pursuant to CPL § 245.35 (3) certifying that reasonable inquiries were made pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (k); granting a Sandoval hearing pursuant to CPL §§ 245.10 (1) (b) and 245.20 (3); and allowing defendant to reserve the right to file additional motions as necessary.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the People's CoC and SoR dated, January 23, 2026, was VALID; and further that:

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was TIMELY; and

Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

Defendant's motion for Huntley/Dunaway and Wade/Dunaway pre-trial hearings is GRANTED; and

Defendant's request for an order precluding or suppressing evidence pursuant to CPL §§ 710.20 (6), (4) and 710.60 is DENIED; and

Defendant's application seeking the right to make further motions is GRANTED to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3); and

Defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing is respectfully REFERRED to the trial court; and

The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §§ 200.95 and 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

The People are DIRECTED within two weeks of this Decision and Order to (1) DISCLOSE outstanding metadata for 911 calls identified by defense counsel; (2) DISCLOSE CPIs for POs Taborda and Rahman; (3) DISCLOSE attachments for IAB logs # 2017-51697 ("Audio 1," "Audio 2," "CCRB," and "I CAD Job#-redacted" and 2019-1413 ("TRI," "ICAD," "49," "Audio" and "Audio"); (4) DISCLOSE BWC device audit trails; and (5) DISCLOSE photographs taken by PO Santana, if any. Any supplemental disclosures are to be ACCOMPANIED by a supplemental CoC.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 25, 2025, defendant was arrested for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") §§ 1192 (3) (driving while intoxicated) and 1192 (1) (driving while impaired), a misdemeanor and a violation, respectively. Defendant was also arraigned on the criminal complaint on October 25, 2025, and released on his own recognizance. The information alleges that defendant was observed seated behind the wheel of a 2023 red Hyundai Santa Fe with the headlights on and stationary on a public road. It is further alleged that defendant was observed to have slurred speed, to be unsteady and swaying on his feet, and to have a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his breath.

The People filed and served their automatic disclosure form, CoC and SoR on January 23, 2026, and their supplemental CoC on March 27, 2026, the same date the People opposed the instant motion  ¹ . Additionally, the People opposed the instant motion on the instant motion was set on October 27, 2025. By emails dated February 11, February 18 and February 24, 2026, the defense raised objections to the prosecution's CoC, which the assigned ADA responded to on February 20 and February 25, 2026.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Arguments

Defendant

Initially, the defense enumerates 33 items as materials missing from the People's disclosures (defendant's affirmation at 7-17). Next, defendant asserts that these categories of documents are plainly discoverable and routinely disclosed despite remaining outstanding, to wit: arrest report worksheet; pre-arraignment notification report; online Prisoner Arraignment Database Form ("ZOLPA" form); arrest photographs; interrupted patrol logs; DAS search log; stop report; consent to search form; vehicle seizure form; vehicle report; LIDAR calibration records; advanced roadside impaired driver enforcement; RVIN NYS auto registration by VIN; NYS drug influence evaluation; metadata for 911 calls; request for laboratory testing; automatic vehicle location data; updated CCRB records for Police Officers ("PO") Taborda and Rahman; CCRB investigative recommendations; central personnel index; IAB investigation index sheets for logs concerning POs Taborda and Rahman; attachments for IAB log ## 2017-51697 and 2019-1413; settlement documents concerning a civilian lawsuit against PO Taborda; DAO reports; BWC device audit logs; complete report of refusal; NYPD dashboard camera footage; two photographs taken by PO Santana and three photographs taken by PO Taborda (defendant's affirmation at 7-17). The defense avers that the People could not have exercised due diligence given the breadth of the undisclosed items which all purportedly constitute discoverable materials subject to CPL § 245.20 (defendant's affirmation at 22-26)

In his reply brief, the defense argues that the outstanding discovery is not substantially duplicative, insignificant nor easily remedied and, further that the People failed to make a diligent and good faith effort to confer before and after filing their CoC as required by the 2025 legislative amendments to Article 245 (defendant's reply affirmation at 11-12, 35-37).

The People

The People maintain that after their initial request for discoverable items on November 5, 2025, they followed up on November 26, December 9 and December 24, 2025 (People's affirmation at 12). As a threshold matter, the People dispute that none of the 33 items identified as missing as of the date of defendant's motion were disclosed (People's affirmation at 14-15). Moreover, the assigned ADA contends that she had already advised the defense that several of the purportedly missing items did not exist (People's affirmation at 12, 16-21, 28). The People state that they endeavored to respond to discovery objections as soon as they were apprised thereof and they argue that the defense failed to make a good faith effort to provide the prosecution with specific and particularized reasons in support of their CoC challenge (People's affirmation at 29).

II. Applicable Legal Standard

The CoC Challenge

In People v Bay, the Court of Appeals found that, in evaluating prosecutorial due diligence, the "key question in determining if a proper certificate of compliance has been filed is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to determine the existence of material and information subject to discovery," a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar (see Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-213 [2023] [emphasis added]; CPL §§ 245.20 [1], 245.50 [1]). The Bay Court further emphasized that to oppose a motion to dismiss because the prosecution's CoC is illusory, the People "bear the burden of establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC despite a belated or missing disclosure" (see Bay at 213 [emphasis added]).

Many of the factors set forth in the Bay decision animate the Legislature's August 2025 amendments to New York's discovery law with one notable change providing that the People are no longer required to provide automatic discovery before filing their CoC if they demonstrate that they exercised due diligence and acted in good faith to fulfill their disclosure mandate (see CPL § 245.50 [1]). Additionally, pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), the movant seeking to challenge a CoC must provide an affirmation that they timely conferred in good faith, or made efforts to do so, concerning the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge (see CPL § 245.50 [4] [c]).

Moreover, the 2025 Legislative reforms enumerate several factors a court must consider to gauge the opposing party's due diligence, including the volume of discovery provided, whether the prosecution's lapse was self-reported, if the omission was corrected and whether the assigned ADA knew that missing or belatedly disclosed information existed (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a]). However, the statutory guidance specifically provides that the court's determination shall be based on the totality of the party's efforts to comply rather than any one factor referenced therein (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a], [b] [emphasis added]).

The CPL § 30.30 Challenge

In a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1), the defendant has the initial burden to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to declare trial readiness within the statutorily prescribed time, 90 days (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]); People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78 [1995]). The burden then shifts to the People to identify excludable delays (see Luperon, 85 NY2d at 78).

Additionally, the prosecution must declare readiness for trial on the record (see People v England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994] ["Trial readiness in CPL § 30.30 means both a communication of readiness by the People on the record and an indication of present readiness"] citing Kendzia at 337). Lastly, the People must satisfy their statutory obligation pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (3), which provides that "the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section" (see Id.).

II. The Court's Analysis

The diligence and "reasonableness under the circumstances" standards articulated in the Bay decision expressly reject the notion of a perfect prosecutor, particularly where the Bay decision cautions trial courts to adjudicate due diligence based upon "a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar" (see People v Valentin, 82 Misc 3d 1237[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50487[U], *4 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024] citing Bay at 212). Similarly, the CPL § 245.50 (5) (b) amendment to Article 245 provides that "the court's determination shall be based on consideration of all factors listed in paragraph (a)" since no single factor is dispositive (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [b]).

Belated Disclosure

In the People's supplemental CoC, filed on March 27, 2026, the assigned ADA acknowledged having received defense counsel's inquiry concerning the ZOLPA and the photographs taken by PO Rahman on February 11, 2026. Although the People stated their position that the ZOLPA was not an item within the ambit of automatic disclosures, she nonetheless requested it from the precinct on March 9 and disclosed it via OneDrive on March 12. (People's affirmation, exhibit B). Similarly, the supplemental CoC recounts the assigned ADA's efforts to procure PO Rahman's photographs and, despite having been told by the precinct that none existed, on March 9 she followed up with PO Rahman directly and disclosed those photographs via OneDrive on March 12 as well. The Court is persuaded that the People, having been apprised of the missing discovery, took prompt remedial action to provide the ZOLPA and PO Rahman's photographs thereby demonstrating due diligence (see People v Santiago, 87 Misc 3d 1221[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51653[U], *5 [Crim Ct, New York County 2025] [The People demonstrated prompt remedial action without court intervention] [internal quotations omitted]).

Items Which Do Not Exist

The People maintain that eight of the purportedly missing items do not exist and annexed to the opposition is an email dated November 26 2025, from the PO Jessica Lasalle, Operations Coordinator Office/Discovery, 48th Precinct, to the assigned ADA which alerted the People that the vehicle stop report and vehicle seizure form did not exist and on March 26, 2026, PO LaSalle further advised the assigned ADA that the consent to search form and vehicle report did not exist (People's affirmation, exhibits B and C). These emails demonstrate that prior to the parties' conferral, the People had followed up for the requested items in an attempt to comply with their discovery obligations. Similarly, the People have provided an email dated March 10, 2026, wherein PO Lasalle advises the assigned ADA that the arrest report worksheet does not exist (People's affirmation, exhibit C).

With respect to the defense's request for LIDAR calibration records, the assigned ADA reasonably rebuts the presumption that said records were created where the information provides that defendant was observed seated behind the wheel of a stationary vehicle on a public highway People's affirmation at 19). The prosecution has provided credible explanations for why dashboard footage doesn't exist (the 48th Precinct has not provided any footage) and, in any event, the Court finds that this footage would be duplicative of the BWC footage already provided People's affirmation at 28).With respect to records pertaining to the NYS Drug Enforcement Evaluation, the People plausibly deny that these records were generated where defendant is alleged to have been driving under the influence of alcohol not drugs (People's affirmation at 20).

The assigned ADA credibly avers that defense counsel was advised that a request for laboratory testing also does not exist in a refusal case where no controlled substances were vouchered (People's affirmation at 20). Additionally, the People assert that an Advanced Roadside Impaired Driver Enforcement report was not generated and that the information that may have been deduced from this document would have been duplicative of the disclosed BWC footage depicting the officers' interactions with defendant (People's affirmation at 19). Similarly, defendant's request for RVIN is not a basis to invalidate the prosecution's CoC where there is no allegation concerning defendant's registration of the subject vehicle, and the People have already advised defense counsel that the document does not exist.

Lastly, the prosecution contends that it had already advised the defense that the refusal form provided is the finalized copy signed by both PO Rahman and PO Taborda- who administered defendant's IDTU examination (People's affirmation at 28). The Court finds that the disclosed IDTU footage should assuage defense counsel's concern that words and/or conduct evinced by defendant's alleged refusal was memorialized.

This Court declines to find that the People's CoC should be invalidated on the basis of materials which credibly do not exist (see People v Polanco, 83 Misc 3d 1287 [A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51235[U], *4 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024] ["It must be axiomatic that the People have no duty to disclose evidence which does not exist"]).

Items Not Within the People's Possession/Control/Custody

The assigned ADA reasonably avers that the requested pre-arraignment notification report is a court-generated document and thus not subject to automatic discovery (People's affirmation at 13). Similarly, the People maintain that they have already disclosed the most updated CCRB records for PO Taborda and PO Rahman as well as documents already within their possession concerning PO Taborda's civilian lawsuit and thereby satisfied their obligation pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (2) (People's affirmation at 22). The Court declines to find the People's CoC illusory insofar as these items cannot reasonably be construed as materials created by a law enforcement agency under the People's control.

Missing Discovery Items

Concerning defendant's claim that the Domain Awareness System search logs were improperly withheld, the record demonstrates that the assigned ADA made a good faith request for clarification of what the DAS search log is and why it relates to the subject matter of the case; where defense counsel purports to answer the People's inquiry in his motion to dismiss rather than conferring prior to the motion, the Court finds that defendant has not complied with the Legislative mandate to confer concerning the "specific and particularized matters" which comprise defendant's CoC challenge (see CPL § 245.50 [4] [c] [emphasis added]; see defense counsel's affirmation at 8). Moreover, there is no suggestion in the record that the materials already provided by the People, to wit: the DALL, DCID, RALL and Entity Summary report, do not satisfy defendant's request for database searches. The same is lack of conferral was demonstrated with respect to defendant's request for automatic vehicle location data where defense counsel first deigns to answer the assigned ADA's request for clarification concerning the document and its relevance to the case at bar in his CoC challenge (see defense counsel's affirmation at 11).

Next, the Court finds that interrupted patrol logs are not discoverable because they are purely administrative in nature and defendant has not credibly demonstrated how these logs relate to the subject matter of the case (see People v Arbaszewski, 85 Misc 3d 1218[A], *17 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2025]). Lastly, the Court is persuaded that defense counsel has not proffered a particularized reason why the Department Advocate Officer's reports, which he contends include the specific charges of misconduct against an officer in CCRB and IAB cases, is not duplicative of the CCRB and IAB materials already disclosed.

Discoverable Items Which Should Be Disclosed

1. Metadata for 911 calls. Defense counsel concedes that he received a folder titled "911" which may in fact be the metadata at issue (defense affirmation at 10). The parties endeavored to clarify the issue through emails on February 20 and 24, to no avail and the assigned ADA maintains that they are still unclear about what specific documents are missing (People's affirmation at 20). Accordingly, the parties are directed to confer concerning the two files identified by defense counsel, and the People are directed to confirm whether said files exist and to serve a supplemental CoC with additional disclosures, if any.

2. Central Personnel Index. Defense counsel asserts that he is not in receipt of any CPI data for the officers involved in this case (defense affirmation at 12). The People maintain that CPIs are not entirely discoverable insofar as they include allegations concerning personal matters such as medical leave. While the People maintain that they have disclosed discoverable portions of the CPI, they are hereby directed to confirm that CPIs for POs Taborda and Rahman are disclosed, and to file a supplemental CoC with additional disclosures, if any.

3. Attachments for IAB logs ## 2017-51697 and 2019-1413. While the Court accepts the assigned ADA's representation that IAB Investigation Index Sheets where not provided for these logs (defense affirmation at 12), the Court of Appeals has ruled that IAB attachments which contain or substantiate misconduct allegations summarized in a substantiated or unsubstantiated IAB log are discoverable (see People v Fuentes, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872 (2025). The assigned ADA's argument that defendant's request for the attachments is akin to sending the People on a "hunting campaign" is meritless (People's affirmation at 25). The People are directed to disclose the attachments for IAB logs # 2017-51697 ("Audio 1," "Audio 2," "CCRB," and "I CAD Job#-redacted" and 2019-1413 ("TRI," "ICAD," "49," "Audio" and "Audio") with a supplemental CoC.

4. BWC Device Audit Logs. The People conceded that while they did not believe device audit logs were discoverable, they nonetheless advised defense counsel on February 25, 2026, but have not received a response. While courts of concomitant jurisdiction have ruled differently, this Court finds that device audit logs are discoverable (see People v Rollerson, 82 Misc 3d 1212[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50291[U], *4 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024]). The People are directed to follow up their request and to file a supplemental CoC with the disclosures.

5. Photographs taken by PO Santana. The People have detailed their efforts to procure these photographs from the precinct and from PO Santana directly, on November 5 and November 26, 2025, and March 9 and March 25, 2026. They have demonstrated due diligence. Nonetheless, they are directed to follow up with PO Santana once more and to file a supplemental CoC with any additional disclosures, if any.

Due Diligence

The record at bar demonstrates that the assigned ADA's discharge of the People's discovery obligations was not exemplary but the People's CoC enumerates voluminous discovery provided, including: activity logs for POs Taborda, Sifonte, Gibbons, Rahman and Santana; the command log; arrest report; BWC checklist; CJA; complaint report; arraignment card; DALL-NYS Driver Safety record; Giglio materials for Taborda and Rahman; IDTU form; patrol roll call log; prisoner movement slip and pedigree card; report of refusal; three IDTU footage videos; BWC footage for POs Sifonte, Gibbons, Rahman and Santana; 911 MSG 001; radio MSG 001and entity report. Moreover, the People acted promptly and without court intervention to pursue the outstanding ZOLPA report and photographs by PO Rahman, as well as documents concerning PO Taborda's civil lawsuit and CCRB records in furtherance of their CPL § 245.20 (2) mandate.

Of the five categories of outstanding discoverable materials identified by the Court, the People were only recalcitrant concerning the IAB log attachments and BWC device audit trails based upon their mistaken belief that neither was subject to see CPL § 245.20. Otherwise, the record at bar demonstrates the People's continual efforts to follow up and to seek clarification concerning items with which the assigned ADA was unfamiliar. The Court concludes that the delayed and missing disclosure was not prejudicial to the defense's ability to investigate or prepare for trial. Accordingly, and based upon the totality of circumstances, instead of assessing "the party's efforts item by item," the Court finds that the prosecution has demonstrated due diligence to comply with Article 245, and holds that the People's CoC and SCoC, filed on January 23, and March 27, 2026, respectively, were both valid (see CPL § 245.50 [5]).

IV. The CPL § 30.30 Calculation

Generally, a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant, and it is settled law that the date on which the action is commenced is excluded from the CPL § 30.30 computation (see CPL § 1.20 [17]; see also People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Accordingly, the People's speedy trial time began to accrue on October 26, 2025, the day following defendant's arraignment. The People declared readiness for trial by filing their CoC and SoR on January 23, 2026 (October 26, 2025 — January 23, 2025 = 89 days), within their statutorily allotted time (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied.

V. Omnibus Relief

Defendant's request for an order precluding or suppressing evidence pursuant to CPL §§ 710.20 (6), (4) and 710.60 is denied. However, the Court grant's defendant's request for a Huntley/Dunaway and Wade/Dunaway hearings and his application seeking the right to make further motions to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3). The People are directed to comply with their continuing disclosure obligations, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures. Lastly, Sandoval issues are referred to the trial court.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the People's CoC and SCoC filings on January 23, and March 27, 2026, respectively, were VALID; and further:

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was TIMELY; and

Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

Defendant's motion for Huntley/Dunaway and Wade/Dunaway pre-trial hearings is GRANTED; and

Defendant's request for an order precluding or suppressing evidence pursuant to CPL §§ 710.20 (6), (4) and 710.60 is DENIED; and

Defendant's application seeking the right to make further motions is GRANTED to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3); and

Defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing is respectfully REFERRED to the trial court;

The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §§ 200.95 and 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

The People are DIRECTED within two weeks of this Decision and Order to (1) DISCLOSE outstanding metadata for 911 calls identified by defense counsel; (2) DISCLOSE CPIs for POs Taborda and Rahman; (3) DISCLOSE attachments for IAB logs # 2017-51697 ("Audio 1," "Audio 2," "CCRB," and "I CAD Job#-redacted" and 2019-1413 ("TRI," "ICAD," "49," "Audio" and "Audio"); (4) DISCLOSE BWC device audit trails; and (5) DISCLOSE photographs taken by PO Santana, if any. Any supplemental disclosures are to be ACCOMPANIED by a supplemental CoC.

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

Dated: June 11, 2026

Bronx, New York

HON. YADHIRA GONZÁLEZ-TAYLOR, A.J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court has no record of receiving any response to defendant's motion for omnibus hearings. As such, defendant's motion for omnibus relief will be considered unopposed.

Yadhira González-Taylor, J.