The People of the State of New York v. Robert Pauley, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant Robert Pauley moves for an order: (1) dismissing this matter pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 30.30; and (2) suppressing and precluding statement evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied. The remaining motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. Factual Allegations

According to the superseding information ("SSI")¹ and the People's affirmation in opposition to the Defendant's motions, on January 9, 2025, at 10:00 AM, inside 344 East 110th Street, New York, New York, the Defendant stepped in front of the complainant and blocked the complainant from exiting the front door of the Defendant's apartment. The Defendant stated to the complainant, "You're not leaving until I say you can leave," and shoved the complainant in the chest. The Defendant repeatedly struck the complainant's hand as the complainant reached for, and held, the door handle. In addition, the Defendant pulled on the complainant's jacket, backpack, and body as the complainant attempted to open the door, and the complainant was unable to leave the apartment for approximately twenty minutes. Later that day, at 2:00 PM, the Defendant again stepped in front of the complainant as he attempted to exit the Defendant's apartment. As the complainant attempted to open the door, holding onto the doorframe with his left arm, the Defendant pulled the complainant's right arm. The complainant sustained a laceration, redness, and substantial pain to his left forearm, and was prevented from leaving the apartment for five minutes.

On February 2, 2025, at 3:00 AM, in the Defendant's apartment, the Defendant struck the complainant in the face with a closed fist, causing bruising, swelling, redness, and substantial pain.

On April 25, 2025, at 10:00 PM, the Defendant stepped in front of the complainant and blocked him from exiting the Defendant's apartment. As the complainant reached for the door handle, the Defendant struck him in the face with an open hand and pulled on the complainant's jacket, causing the pocket to tear. This conduct prevented the complainant from leaving the apartment for ten minutes.

On October 3, 2025, the complainant reported these allegations to the police.

II. Procedural History

On October 15, 2025, the Defendant was arrested, and the People filed a misdemeanor complaint charging him with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00 [1], [2]), Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (PL § 145.00 [1]), Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.30 [4]), Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (PL §§ 110/120.00 [1]), and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1]). The Defendant was arraigned the same day. The case was adjourned to December 8, 2025, for the People to obtain a supporting deposition from the complainant.

On October 16, 2025, the People conducted an in-person interview with the complainant, who informed the prosecutor of additional alleged facts that were not charged in the original accusatory instrument. On December 2, 2025, the People contacted the arresting officer regarding outstanding discovery, requested 911 call records and documentation, contacted the Survivor's Services Bureau ("SSB") to obtain records, and sought assistance from the District Attorney's Litigation Support Unit ("LSU") to collect outstanding NYPD paperwork. The People also emailed NYPD officers to determine whether body-worn camera ("BWC") footage existed for October 3, 2025, the date on which the complainant reported the Defendant's alleged conduct. In addition, the People emailed NYPD officers who conducted a home visit with the complainant on October 16, 2025, to obtain their BWC footage.

On December 2, 2025, the People provided initial disclosures to the defense, including BWC footage, District Attorney's Office paperwork, NYPD Electronic Case Management System materials, police paperwork, interview notes, and SSB disclosures.

In court on December 8, 2025, the People did not file a supporting deposition; the case was adjourned to January 23, 2026, for conversion of the accusatory instrument. Also on December 8, 2025, the People searched for and obtained six Domestic Incident Reports ("DIRs"), involving the Defendant and/or the complainant. Two DIRs, dated 2005 and 2008 respectively, named the complainant as the suspect, and a party unrelated to this case as the victim.

Between December 10, 2025, and January 7, 2026, the People obtained and disclosed additional discovery materials, including BWC footage, police activity logs and arrest paperwork, text communications between the arresting officer and the complainant, audio/video recordings made by the complainant, photographs taken during the Defendant's arrest, Law Enforcement Disclosure materials, and interview notes. In addition, the People contacted the NYPD's Tapes and Records Unit regarding outstanding materials that the People had not yet received.

On January 7, 2026, the People filed and served off-calendar an SSI, an Automatic Discovery Form ("ADF"), a discovery list, a Certificate of Compliance ("COC"), and a Certificate of Readiness ("COR"). The People noted in the COC that certain discovery items were still outstanding, to wit, a police radio run and 911 calls, although the People were still attempting to ascertain whether those materials existed.

In court on January 23, 2026, the People stated that they were ready for trial, and the defense requested an adjournment. The Defendant was arraigned on the SSI, and the case was adjourned to March 3, 2026, for trial.

In the interim, on February 4, 2026, defense counsel emailed the prosecutor to raise various discovery issues. Due to the commendable and diligent efforts by both parties, by February 6, 2026, the parties had narrowed their disagreement to the two issues which are the subject of this motion. Also on February 6, 2026, the People disclosed additional discovery, the timing of which is not challenged here, and filed and served off-calendar a supplemental COC ("SCOC") and restatement of readiness.

The Defendant filed and served off-calendar the instant motion to dismiss and omnibus motion on February 11, 2026, and February 27, 2026, respectively.

In court on March 3, 2026, the People stated that they were ready for trial. The Court set a motion schedule on the instant motions, and the case was adjourned to May 1, 2026, for decision.²

III. Challenges to the Certificate of Compliance

The Defendant contends that the People's initial COC and COR filed on January 7, 2026, and their SCOC and restatement of readiness on February 6, 2026, are invalid because the People have not disclosed: (1) underlying materials relating to the 2005 and 2008 DIRs in which the complainant was listed as the suspect, and (2) oral or written statements that the complainant may have made to third parties regarding the allegations in this case. The People respond that the materials requested by the Defendant are not automatically discoverable and assert that they have made good faith, diligent efforts to obtain and disclose all required discovery.

A. Criminal Procedure Law 245

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 245, the People must produce certain initial discovery as a matter of course, without any demand from the defense  ³ (CPL 245.10, 245.20). When a defendant is not in custody and no individualized circumstances apply, this discovery must be served on the defense within thirty-five days of the defendant's arraignment (CPL 245.10[1] [a] [ii]).

Criminal Procedure Law § 245.20 (1) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of materials subject to automatic disclosure. The prosecution must make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of these materials, and to make any such materials available for discovery, even where the items are "not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control" (CPL 245.20 [2]). "[A]ll items and information related to the prosecution of a charge" that are "in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency" are deemed to be "in the possession" of the prosecution (id.). The People are not, however, required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum materials which the defense may also obtain via subpoena.

Once the People have fulfilled their disclosure obligations pursuant to CPL 245.20, they must file a COC (CPL 245.50 [1]). In doing so, the People must affirm that, "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries and efforts to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose material and information subject to discovery," the People have "disclosed and made available" all known, discoverable material that they have obtained (id.). In addition, the People must identify the specific items provided to the defense, and must disclose any materials "of which the prosecution is aware, but has been unable to obtain despite the exercise of due diligence" (id.).

Absent an individualized finding of special circumstances, only after a proper COC has been filed can the People be deemed ready for trial (CPL 245.50 [3]). Indeed, CPL 30.30 provides that "[a]ny statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20" (CPL 30.30 [5]).

Once the People have filed a COC, the defendant must provide discovery to the prosecution within thirty days (CPL 245.10 [2]). Both the prosecution and the defense are bound by a continuing duty to disclose discoverable materials. If either party "subsequently learns of additional material or information which it would have been under a duty to disclose," then that party must "expeditiously notify the other party and disclose the additional material and information" (CPL 245.60).

Should the prosecution disclose additional discovery after filing a COC, the People must file and serve a supplemental COC. The supplemental COC must identify the additional materials provided, and must "detail the basis for the delayed disclosure" (id.; CPL 245.50 [1-a]). So long as the original COC was "filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence," the filing of a supplemental COC will not impact the validity of the original certificate  ⁴ (CPL 245.50 [1-a]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, [2023]; People v Coley, 240 AD3d 122 [2d Dept 2025]; People v McMahon, 237 AD3d 746 [2d Dept 2025]). The court will, however, "impose a remedy or sanction that is appropriate and proportionate to the prejudice" for any discoverable materials that are "disclosed belatedly" (CPL 245.80).

If the defense is aware of a "potential defect or deficiency" relating to a COC filed by the People, then the defense must file a motion challenging the COC "within 35 days of service of the certificate"⁵ (CPL 245.50 [4] [b], [c]). Any such challenge must include an affirmation that the defense "timely conferred in good faith" or "timely made good faith efforts to confer with" the prosecution "regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for" the challenge, and that such efforts to resolve the issues raised "were unsuccessful" (CPL 245.50 [4] [c]).

A court will not invalidate a COC if the prosecution "has exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material required to be disclosed" (CPL 245.50 [6]). In assessing whether the prosecution exercised due diligence, courts weigh the totality of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations, "rather than assess[ing] the [prosecution's] efforts item by item" (CPL 245.50 [5]). In particular, relevant factors include:

[T]he efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with [their discovery obligations]; 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.

(CPL 245.50 [5]).

B. Application

The Defendant argues that the People failed to: (1) disclose underlying law enforcement records related to the two DIRs from 2005 and 2008 in which the complainant is listed as a suspect; and (2) determine the existence of oral or written statements regarding the case. He asserts that the People's failure to ascertain the existence of these materials, and if they exist, to disclose them, belies the People's claim of due diligence and invalidates their COC, SCOC and statements of readiness. The People respond that these materials are not automatically discoverable and that, viewing the totality of their efforts to collect and provide all required discovery, they have satisfied their statutory obligations.

(i) Disputed Discovery Material

a. Underlying Records for the DIRs

On December 8, 2025, the People conducted a search for any prior DIRs involving the Defendant, the complainant, or the incident location. The People obtained six such DIRs and disclosed them to the defense on December 15, 2025. Two of those DIRs, one from 2005 and one from 2008, named the complainant as the suspect. Both DIRs involved a third-party victim unrelated to the present case.

The DIR from 2005, when the complainant was fifteen years old, alleges that he and his mother "got into a verbal argument" about the complainant "going out," and that the complainant was "being uncontrollable and [would] not listen" to his mother (affirmation of the Defendant's counsel, exhibit C). No injuries were reported and the complainant was not arrested; the case was referred to Family Court.

The DIR from 2008, when the complainant was eighteen years old, alleges that the complainant was arguing with his mother, and his cousin intervened to de-escalate the situation. The complainant grabbed his cousin by the hair and swung her into the couch, and a fight ensued. The complainant allegedly threw a glass candle at his cousin, who reported no pain or visible injuries to the police. The complainant was not arrested. The DIR indicated that the complainant had a prior domestic violence history, was suspected of having a history of drug or alcohol use, and was potentially on either probation or parole (see affirmation of the Defendant's counsel, exhibit D).

The People assert that any underlying records for these DIRs, if they exist, are not automatically discoverable, because they do not relate to the subject matter of the present case pursuant to CPL 245.20 (1) (k). The People further contend that the information contained in the DIRs is sufficient for the defense's impeachment purposes.

On August 7, 2025, the Legislature amended CPL 245.20.⁶ CPL 245.20 (1) (k) (iv) now provides that the prosecution must disclose "all evidence and information that relate to the subject matter of the case" that "tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness." Following the August 7, 2025 amendment, courts have interpreted the requirement that CPL 245.20 (1) (k) materials "relate to the subject matter of" a case in differing ways. Certain courts have held that "all that is required for impeachment material to be 'related to the subject matter of the case' is that it relate to the credibility of a witness in the case" (see People v Harris, 87 Misc 3d 1212[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51548[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2025] [quoting People v Coley, 240 AD3d 122,134 [2d Dept 2025]), while others hold that "information that tends to impeach a testifying witness is automatically discoverable under CPL 245.20 (1) (k) (iv) only if that information has some connection to the charges against the defendant" (see People v Torres, 87 Misc 3d 1249[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51960[U] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2025]).

The significant period between the DIRs and the present, as well as the age of the complainant at the time of the DIRs, are factors in determining the relevance of the DIRs and underlying documents to the instant matter. Moreover, the DIRs provide a summary of the alleged incidents, which the defense could potentially use for impeachment purposes.

On the other hand, the complainant's credibility is a central issue in this case. The complainant is the sole witness to the alleged conduct, and the complainant did not report the allegations until more than six months after they occurred. The DIRs, like the instant matter, relate to allegations of domestic violence. And the 2008 DIR references allegations regarding the complainant's prior domestic violence history, prior drug or alcohol use, and parole or probation history. The "potential impeachment value" of the underlying materials is "best . . . determined by the 'single-minded counsel for the accused' " (see People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 615 [1992] [quoting People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290 [1961]]). Thus under the particular circumstances here, the Court determines that underlying law enforcement materials for the DIRs are discoverable.

Given the age of the DIRs, and the fact that no arrests resulted, it is unclear what underlying materials existed at the time, or whether any such materials still exist. Nor does it follow that the defense would necessarily be permitted to use these materials at trial. However, under the circumstances here, the Court determines that the People have a duty to inquire as to whether any underlying materials exist, and if so, to disclose those materials to the defense.⁷

b. Statements by the Complainant

The Defendant argues that the People's failure to inquire whether the complainant has spoken with anyone, other than law enforcement personnel, or written about the incidents, is inconsistent with the discovery statute's principles of due diligence and reasonableness. The assigned ADA responds that he has spoken with the complainant both in person and via phone. He affirms that the complainant has stated that there were no witnesses to the alleged incidents, and that the People are "otherwise unaware of any non-law enforcement personnel who have information about this case." The People further assert that "any writings or communications between the complainant and unidentified third parties" are not in the People's possession, and are thus "not automatically discoverable" (affirmation of prosecutor at 18).

CPL 245.20 requires the People to disclose to the defense certain information "in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution" (CPL 245.20 [1]), including the identity of non-law enforcement individuals "whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged" (CPL 245.20 [1] [c]), as well as "all statements related to the subject matter of the case, written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording, made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged" (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]). As an initial matter, the scope of the People's duty to disclose is broader than simply the identification of "witnesses to the charged the offenses" (affirmation of prosecutor at 17); it includes identification of individuals "whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant" to the alleged offenses (CPL 245.20 [1] [c]).

Furthermore, in fulfilling their discovery obligations, it is the People's affirmative duty to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of" any witnesses with relevant information or evidence (CPL 245.20 [2]). The People are also required to "make a diligent, good faith effort" to determine the existence of written statements made by individuals with relevant information (CPL 245.20 [2]). If these written materials exist, but are not in the People's possession, the People must make diligent, good faith efforts to "cause such material to be made available for discovery" (id.).

The Court accepts the People's representation that, based upon their conversations with the complainant, they are not aware of either (a) any witnesses to the alleged events, or (b) any individuals, other than the complainant, whom the People know to have relevant evidence or information. Should the People determine, based on their conversations with the complainant and/or any further investigation in the case, that individuals exist who have relevant evidence or information, including written statements, the People would be required to disclose the identity of those individuals, even if those individuals did not witness the alleged incidents.

(ii) Due Diligence

In determining whether the People exercised due diligence, the Court considers the totality of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations (CPL 245.50 [5]). Here, the People detail their efforts to comply with their statutory requirements from the inception of the case. They list by date all communications to obtain discovery, any follow-up requests, and when particular items were received and disclosed. Additionally, the prosecutor conferred numerous times with his office's LSU, SSB, and BWC Unit to acquire missing items.

The People have also documented the significant "volume of discovery provided" (CPL 245.50 [5] [a]; affirmation of prosecutor at 23). In total, the People disclosed approximately 1,200 pages of discovery, including: notes, photographs, SSB materials, NYPD arrest paperwork and follow up reports, BWC footage for twelve officers, voice recordings and videos taken by the complainant, and text messages between the complainant, members of the NYPD and the prosecutor. The People disclosed these materials on a rolling basis, making disclosures on three separate dates prior to filing their initial COC and COR.

The People also self-reported in the initial COC that certain items were outstanding and made diligent efforts to obtain them, without notice from the defense or court intervention (CPL 245.50 [5] [a]). The People further promptly disclosed these materials once obtained.

While the Court has directed the People to inquire as to the existence of underlying law enforcement materials relating to the 2005 and 2008 DIRs, and to disclose those materials if they exist, this does not invalidate the COCs and statements of readiness. Considering the totality of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations, the failure to provide underlying materials relating to allegations against the complainant from approximately eight to ten years ago, which did not result in arrests, does not outweigh the People's significant efforts in this case, particularly where the People have provided a good faith argument that they did not believe the underlying materials to be automatically discoverable.

Similarly, the prosecution has affirmed that they have met their obligations to disclose any individuals whom the People know to have evidence or information relevant to the offenses charged, and therefore, the COC and statements of readiness are not invalid on this basis.

Accordingly, the People have met their burden of showing that they exercised both good faith and due diligence.

III. 30.30 Motion

The Defendant is accused of a misdemeanor offense punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months. Accordingly, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the criminal action, absent excludable time (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]).⁸ Once a defendant has alleged an unexcused delay greater than the statutory allowance, the burden shifts to the People to demonstrate that specific periods of delay should be excluded (see People v Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 [1986]; People v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 [1980]).

In his motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that 119 days are chargeable to the People. The People, on the other hand, contend that only 84 days should be charged. This Court finds that 84 days are chargeable to the People, as follows:

A. October 15, 2025 to December 8, 2025: 54 days

Following the filing of the accusatory instrument and the Defendant's arraignment on October 15, 2025, the case was adjourned to December 8, 2025, for the People to obtain a supporting deposition. This 54-day period is chargeable to the People.

B. December 8, 2025 to January 23, 2026: 30 days

On December 8, 2025, the People did not have a supporting deposition. The case was adjourned to January 23, 2026, for them to obtain one. On January 7, 2026, the People filed and served off-calendar an SSI, COC and COR. As set forth in Section II, supra, the COC and COR were valid and, therefore, tolled the speedy trial clock. The 30-day period from December 8, 2025 to January 7, 2026 is chargeable to the People. The remainder of this period is not chargeable to the People.

C. January 23, 2026 to March 3, 2026: 0 days

On January 23, 2026, the People stated that they were ready for trial. The case was adjourned, at the defense request, to March 3, 2026, for trial. On February 11, 2026, and February 27, 2026, the Defendant filed motions off-calendar. This period is not chargeable to the People (CPL 30.30 [4] [b]).

D. March 3, 2026, to May 1, 2026: 0 days

On March 3, 2026, the People stated that they were ready for trial. The Court set a motion schedule on the instant motions, and the case was adjourned to May 1, 2026, for decision. This period is not chargeable to the People (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]).

Accordingly, 84 days are chargeable to the People; the motion to dismiss is denied.

IV. Remaining Motions

The Defendant's motion for a Huntley/Dunaway hearing is granted.

The Defendant's motion to preclude statements for which no notice was given by the People is denied, with leave to renew before the trial court.

This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:__________________

New York, New York

Kacie A. Lally, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Defendant was initially charged via a misdemeanor complaint; an SSI was filed on January 7, 2026.

2.   On March 22, 2026, the People disclosed additional discovery and filed and served off-calendar an SCOC and restatement of readiness. The Defendant has not raised any challenges with respect to this material.

3.   Criminal Procedure Law Article 245 went into effect on January 1, 2020, and has since been amended, most recently on August 7, 2025.

4.   Similarly, a COC will not be deemed invalid if the People subsequently produce additional discovery that "did not exist at the time of the filing of the original certificate of compliance" (CPL 245.50 [1-a]).

5.   This 35-day period may be extended upon a showing of good cause, or where the grounds for the challenge are "based upon a material change in circumstances" (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i], [ii]).

6.   Specifically, the Legislature removed from CPL 245.20 (1) the phrase "items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case" (compare CPL 245.20 [1], eff May 3, 2020 ["The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant . . . all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution"] with CPL 245.20 [1], eff Aug 7, 2025 ["The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant . . . the following material and information in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution"]). The Legislature inserted into CPL 245.20 (1) (k) the phrase "that relate to the subject matter of the case."

7.   If the materials do exist, but due to the age of the DIRs or some other reason, are highly burdensome for the People to obtain, the People may make that record.

8.   CPL 1.20 (17) provides that "[a] criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant in a criminal court." Here, the accusatory instrument was filed on October 15, 2025. The speedy trial clock started running the next day (People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]).

Kacie A. Lally, J.