The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Angel De Jesus, Defendant. (2026)

The defense requested leave to file a motion challenging the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b), 170.30 (1) (e) and 245.50 (4). The court granted that request. As of the date of this decision, however, defense counsel has not filed such a motion.

I. Relevant Facts

On January 25, 2026, the defendant was arrested and charged with a top count of VTL § 1192 (2) for allegedly driving while intoxicated. He was represented by defense counsel Mr. William Ahee of the Legal Aid Society. On April 10, 2026, Mr. Ahee filed an omnibus motion. On March 10, 2026, the court issued its decision, and the People filed their COC and COR.

On March 30, 2026, the parties appeared in court, and defense counsel requested an extension to file a motion challenging the COC.¹ The court granted an extension, and defense's motion was due by May 29, 2026.

On June 10, 2026, having not yet received the anticipated COC challenge, the court emailed the parties requesting a status update. The court then learned that Mr. Ahee was no longer employed by the Legal Aid Society. The court subsequently emailed supervisory attorneys at the Legal Aid Society to inquire about the status of the anticipated motion. To date, the defense has neither filed a COC challenge nor requested an additional extension of time.

II. The COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will typically first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50255[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, if the motion satisfies those requirements, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Finally, if the court finds that any discovery violations occurred, the court will then examine the violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]).

Here, the defense has not satisfied the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (c). Under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), a COC challenge must be filed "within thirty-five days of the service of the certificate" and must include an affirmation that the defense "timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge." Defense has not filed any COC challenge and has not requested any further good cause extension (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i]). Additionally, no notice of appearance for substitution of counsel has been filed. Therefore, defense has not complied with the 35-day timeline set in CPL 245.50 (4), nor the extended timeline granted by this court and any COC challenge will be procedurally time-barred without a demonstrated material change in circumstance (CPL 245.40 [4] [c] [ii]).

III. Conclusion

The COC challenge is therefore PRECLUDED as untimely, and the People's March 10, 2026, COC is deemed valid.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: July 7, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The court understood that counsel intended to challenge the validity of the People's certificate of compliance and to move for dismissal pursuant to CPL § 30.30.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.