The People of the State of New York v. Yahiness Holden, Defendant (2026)

In separate cases, defendant Yahiness Holden and defendant Michael Samuels through their attorneys at the Legal Aid Society move for dismissal, arguing that these misdemeanor cases should be dismissed because the certificates of compliance ("COC") and statements of readiness ("SOR") were signed by individuals not admitted to practice law in New York and not co-signed by a supervising attorney.¹ For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

In Holden, on January 10, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with Public Lewdness and Harassment in the Second Degree. On March 10, 2026, the People filed their COC and SOR.

In Samuels, on December 13, 2025, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, Theft of Services, and other related charges. On March 10, 2026, the People filed their COC and SOR.

In both cases, the COCs and SORs were signed by Assistant District Attorneys who recently graduated law school, have taken the New York bar exam, but have not yet been admitted to practice law. In Holden, the ADA noted in her signature block on the COC/SOR "Assistant District Attorney/Not Admitted." However, in Samuels, the ADA simply put "Assistant District Attorney" in his signature block.

DISCUSSION

In general, only an attorney licensed by the state may "practice . . . as an attorney-at-law" in New York (Judiciary Law 478; see also Judiciary Law 484). However, law school graduates who have taken the bar exam and are acting under the supervision of a legal aid organization or a state or local government agency may practice "pursuant to a program approved by the appellate division of the supreme court of the department within which such activities are taking place and specifying the extent to which they may engage in activities otherwise prohibited by" New York law (Judiciary Law 478). Law school graduates who have failed two bar examinations are no longer eligible to practice under this law. In addition, law students who have completed two semesters of law school are eligible to practice under the Judiciary Law.

On its website, the Appellate Division, First Department provides guidelines for legal aid organizations and government legal offices to apply for a student practice program consistent with the Judiciary Law. The guidelines state that, as part of the student practice program, "[a]ll submissions to a court or other tribunal pursuant to a Student Practice Order shall be signed by the supervising attorney of record, who shall thoroughly review and approve all documents."² Neither the First Department's nor the Bronx District Attorney's Office's websites contain the actual student practice order for the Bronx District Attorney's Office.

Based on these guidelines, the Legal Aid Society moved to dismiss both of these misdemeanor cases because the COCs and SORs were signed by law school graduates who have not been admitted to practice in New York, and the documents were not "signed by the supervising attorney of record." According to the defendants, because every filing must be signed by an attorney, the documents were invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock.

In their initial oppositions to the motions to dismiss, the Bronx DA made numerous arguments in response to the defendants' motions — including that, categorically, law school graduates who have passed the bar exam but have not yet been admitted do not need a supervisor to sign their filings — but did not actually address the language of the student practice order approved by the First Department. After the Court ordered supplemental briefing, including that the Bronx DA must submit the actual student practice order approved by the First Department, the DA provided the student practice orders dating back to 1971 and advanced a different argument: that the First Department did not actually require a supervisor's signatures on filings in misdemeanor cases.

In July 1971, the First Department issued the initial practice order for the Bronx DA's office. The order provided that recent law school graduates, referred to at the time as "C Law Investigators," could appear in court under the supervision of the Bronx County District Attorney, and the Practice Order delineates which duties and responsibilities are permitted for cases venued in Bronx Criminal Court, Bronx Supreme Court, and the Appellate Division and Appellate Term, First Department (July 1971 Practice Order ¶¶ 2-5). With respect to Criminal Court cases, C Law Investigators were authorized to perform all the duties of a regularly admitted Assistant District Attorney if law investigators first received "intensive in-court training under the immediate personal supervision" of a regularly admitted ADA (id. ¶ 3). Notably, with respect to Supreme Court, the order states that law school graduates may submit documents, briefs and memoranda of law "provided that the name of an assistant district attorney, who is responsible for the contents of the papers, appears on any document" (id. ¶ 4). The order does not contain this requirement for Criminal Court.

Over the years, the First Department has amended the practice orders. In June 2017, the First Department issued an entirely new order for the Bronx DA. This order, subject to certain amendments as discussed below or not relevant to this motion, is still in effect today. Paragraph 3 of the order provides:

The following are the program and powers approved for Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted with respect to cases in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the Civil Court of the City of New York, and the Family Court of the City of New York:

a. To perform all functions authorized by law to be performed by a regularly admitted Assistant District Attorney of Bronx County. Before any Assistant District Attorney/Not Admitted is actually permitted to perform any function in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the Civil Court of the City of New York of the Family Court of the City of New York, s/he will receive intensive in-court training under the immediate supervision of a regularly admitted Assistant District Attorney of Bronx County. In all instances, the Assistant District Attorney/Not admitted shall identify himself or herself to the court as such and an admitted Assistant District Attorney shall be available on call should the court require in a particular matter. Assistant District Attorneys/Not-Admitted may submit to the court any documents, briefs, or memoranda of law; however, all written responses to a motion to dismiss under CPL sections 170.30 or 170.40 shall be reviewed by and approved by an admitted Assistant District Attorney. Pursuant to the foregoing Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted may perform all duties, functions and responsibilities of attorneys.

By contrast, with respect to Supreme Court, "Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted may submit to the court any documents, briefs, or memoranda of law, provided that all such documents are thoroughly reviewed by and approved by an Assistant District Attorney, who is responsible for the contents of the papers, and whose name appears on any documents" (June 2017 Practice Order ¶ 4). Further, in Supreme Court, non-admitted ADAs may not present argument to the court or examinate witnesses in felony trials or other proceedings (id.).

In addition, the Order provides that "[w]hen an Assistant District Attorney/Not Admitted is appearing of counsel to the District Attorney of Bronx County, his or her name shall appear on all official records as an 'Assistant District Attorney/Not Admitted' " (id. ¶ 6).

In February 2022, the First Department made some minor modifications to Paragraph 3(a) of the Order regarding non-admitted law school graduates practicing in Criminal Court. The relevant paragraph now reads:

The following are the program and powers approved for Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted with respect to cases in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the Civil Court of the City of New York, and the Family Court of the City of New York:

a. To perform all functions authorized by law to be performed by a regularly admitted Assistant District Attorney of Bronx County. Before any Assistant District Attorney/Not Admitted is actually permitted to perform any function in the Criminal Court, of the City of New York, the Civil Court of the City of New York or the Family Court of the City of New York, s/he will receive intensive in-court training under the immediate supervision of a regularly admitted Assistant District Attorney of Bronx County. All Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted shall be thoroughly familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1200) and the obligations and ethics pertinent to an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and an Assistant District Attorney. In all instances, the Assistant District Attorney/Not admitted shall obtain prior approval from a court or tribunal to appear in that court or tribunal, or shall identify himself or herself to the court as an Assistant District Attorney/Not admitted and an admitted Assistant District Attorney shall be available on call should the court require in a particular matter. Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted may submit to the court any documents, briefs, or memoranda of law; however, all written responses to a motion to dismiss under CPL sections 170.30 or 170.40 shall be reviewed by and approved by an admitted Assistant District Attorney. Pursuant to the foregoing, Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted may perform all duties, functions and responsibilities of attorneys and/ or Assistant District Attorneys.

By its plain terms, the Student Practice Order does not require a supervising ADA to sign court filings in Criminal Court. In Criminal Court, law school graduates "may submit to the court any documents, briefs, or memoranda of law." Only written responses to a motion to dismiss under CPL sections 170.30 or 170.40 "shall be reviewed by and approved by an admitted Assistant District Attorney." Even with respect to these oppositions to motions to dismiss, there is no requirement that these filings must be signed by a supervising attorney. This contrasts with Supreme Court, where filings must have the name of the admitted ADA who reviewed and approved the document.

The Legal Aid Society makes several arguments as to why these cases should still be dismissed. First, they argue that, although the Practice Order does not explicitly require a supervising attorney's name or signature, the Practice Order should be read in conjunction with the First Department's general guidance on student practice orders. However, the First Department's general guidance on student practice orders is simply guidance to organizations when applying for a student practice program. It is unsigned and not binding on the First Department itself or this Court. By contrast, the Student Practice Order is an order signed by the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division pursuant to the Judiciary Law and is binding on both the Bronx DA and this Court. The Appellate Division chose to require the name of an admitted ADA, who is responsible for the contents of the filings, to appear on all documents filed in Supreme Court, but specifically omitted this requirement in Criminal Court cases such as these prosecutions. Not only does this Court lack the authority to override the Appellate Division's deliberate decision, but this distinction also makes sense given the enormous volume of cases in Criminal Court and their relatively lower stakes compared to cases in Supreme Court with the potential for sentences up to life imprisonment.

Second, Legal Aid also argues that allowing law school graduates to submit filings without a supervisor's name or signature "would render the bar admission process a mere formality" because there would be no distinction between law school graduates and admitted attorneys (Defs.' Supplemental Br. at 5). The Court disagrees with this policy argument as bar admission permits law school graduates to practice in Supreme Court and removes certain restrictions on supervision both in Criminal and Supreme Court. And more importantly, as discussed above, the Appellate Division has complete discretion on how law school graduates can practice in its courts, and the Appellate Division deliberately chose not to require a supervisor's signature on filings in Criminal Court.

Third, Legal Aid argues that the cases should be dismissed because the prosecution conceded in both Samuels and Holden that supervisors did not review the ADAs' COCs/SORs prior to filing. In Holden, the Bronx DA's office states that the ADA discussed the case, including issues involving the COC/SOR, with two supervisors. In Samuels, the Bronx DA's office states that the ADA discussed "many aspects of his COC with several of his colleagues who are admitted attorneys," although not with a supervisor. Although the Practice Order states that "all work done by Assistant District Attorneys/Not Admitted will be carried on under the supervision of one or more experienced Assistant District Attorneys," the order does not state that every aspect of every case must be supervised. If the First Department wanted every filing to be reviewed and supervised, it would have stated so, as it required with oppositions to motions to dismiss (cf. Russello v. United States, 464 US 16, 23 [1983] ("Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion" (cleaned up and citation omitted))).

Fourth, Legal Aid argues that with respect to Samuels, the filings should be rejected because the ADA did not place in his signature block that he was not admitted in New York as required by Paragraph 6 of the Student Practice Order. The Court has no reason to believe this failure to properly identify as a non-admitted ADA was intentional and its omission from the COC and SOR does not render those documents invalid (cf. People v Carter, 77 NY2d 95 [1990] (affirming conviction secured by prosecutor who was unlicensed and had been falsely pretending to be admitted in New York)).

Finally, Legal Aid claims that, even if the COCs and SORs are valid, the oppositions to the motions to dismiss should be struck and the People should be charged with post-readiness delay (see Defs.' Supplemental Br. at 7 ("the prosecution is required to have a supervisor sign all responses to motions to dismiss pursuant to CPL sections 170.30 and 170.40, yet no supervisor signed the motions")). But as discussed above, the Practice Order only requires a supervisor to "review" and "approve" oppositions to motions to dismiss, not to sign them.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motions to dismiss because the COCs and SORs were filed by ADAs not yet admitted to practice in New York and not co-signed by a supervisor are DENIED.

Any contentions not specifically discussed herein are denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: July 13, 2026

ENTER:

Hon. Philip N. Pilmar

Judge, Criminal Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   The defendants' motions to dismiss on other grounds are addressed in separate opinions.

2.    See Supervised Student Practice: Activities of Eligible Students and Recent Law Graduates Authorized to Practice Law Pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, available at https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/Committees&Programs/CFC/StudentPracticeProgram.pdf

Philip N. Pilmar, J.