The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Darnell Paul, Defendant. (2026)

The defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid. Specifically, the defense argues that the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations before filing their COC in that they failed to produce two IAB logs, CCRB histories, disclosure indexes, and disclosure notices for two officers; and medical records. The People oppose, arguing that the defendant's motion is procedurally barred pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), that much of the discovery the defendant claims was outstanding did not exist or was not in their possession when they filed their COC, and that, regardless of any errors, they exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

The court decides the motion as follows.

I. Procedural History

On July 14, 2025, the defendant was arrested after police stopped a vehicle that had been reported stolen and allegedly found the defendant driving it. He was arraigned the next day on a felony complaint charging him with PL §§ 165.50, 165.05 (1), and 265.01 (2).

The case was then adjourned several times, primarily for possible disposition on consent of the parties.

On February 11, 2026, the felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, after which the People filed and served a supporting deposition. The complaint was deemed an information, and the case was adjourned to March 26, 2026, for trial.

On February 25, 2026, the People produced initial discovery to the defense. This production included NYPD records, court records, body-worn camera (BWC) footage, notes of interviews with the complainant, surveillance video footage, and other investigative materials.

On March 10, 2026, the People produced additional discovery, including BWC footage, law enforcement disciplinary records, activity logs, text messages with the complainant, and materials from a related case in Kings County.

On March 11, 2026, the People produced further discovery, including search warrant materials, NYPD records, and witness names and contact information. That same day, the assigned ADA emailed the District Attorney's Office's Law Enforcement Disclosure (LED) Unit to inquire about outstanding materials relating to two officers. A supervisor in the LED Unit responded by email, advising that the ADA was "able to move forward and file a COC" despite two outstanding IAB logs, one for each officer (People's affirmation, Exhibit 10). The supervisor further advised that the LED Unit had received logs for one of the officers the previous day and that an analyst needed to complete a review of the new log (id.).

Later that day, the People filed and served a COC, certificate of readiness (COR), automatic discovery form (ADF), and discovery list. The COC indicated that the People had not produced two IAB logs because "the prosecution . . . has been unable to obtain [them] despite the exercise of due diligence."

On March 16, 2026, the assigned ADA received the outstanding IAB logs from the LED Unit.

On April 10, 2026, the People produced additional discovery, including the two IAB logs, as well as updated disciplinary records and a prisoner movement slip. The defense then emailed the People, stating that it intended to file a COC challenge regarding "the issue of due diligence for these outstanding records and the medical records that are still outstanding" (People's affirmation, Exhibit 7). The defense inquired about the steps taken to obtain the materials, and the People responded by email, explaining their efforts to obtain the FDNY medical records.

On April 14, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion. On June 3, 2026, the People filed their opposition, and on June 10, 2026, the defense filed a reply.

II. COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will 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, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). 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]).

1. Defense Compliance with CPL § 245.50 (4)

The defense's conferral efforts were sufficient. The court does not perceive any basis to question defense counsel's good faith (see People v G.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op. 50832(U), 2026 WL 1529939, *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]), and the parties conferred sufficiently to clarify the points of disagreement (People v Calvin Y., 86 Misc 3d 1270[A], *2 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]). Also, defense counsel's conferral email, which was sent 30 days after the People filed their COC, was not untimely (see G.Y., 2026 WL 1529939 at *1). Under the circumstances, 30 days was not an unreasonable time to conduct a thorough discovery review (see id., fn 1).

2. The People's Compliance with CPL § 245.20

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because they belatedly produced a prisoner movement slip and various law enforcement disciplinary records, and because they failed to produce medical records.

First, the parties agree that the two belatedly disclosed IAB logs are discoverable (see CPL 245.20 [1] [k] [iv]). As to one of the IAB logs, the court finds that the People's failure to produce it before filing their COC constituted a significant discovery error. The People had requested IAB log No. 15-22898 from the NYPD in January but had not yet received it. Accordingly, it was arguably not improper for the People to file a COC without having received that log. By contrast, the People were aware that IAB log No. 24-5612 was in their actual possession when they filed their COC on March 11, 2026. Earlier that day, the LED Unit informed the assigned ADA that it had received IAB log No. 24-5612 and that the log was awaiting review by an analyst (People's affirmation, Exhibit 10). Nevertheless, rather than waiting for the review to be completed and the log to be disclosed, the ADA filed a COC stating that "the prosecution . . . has been unable to obtain [the log] despite the exercise of due diligence" (People's COC, Mar. 11, 2026). This reflects a significant misunderstanding of the People's obligations under CPL § 245.50. When an ADA certifies that "the prosecution has disclosed and made available all known material and information it has obtained subject to discovery," as required by CPL § 245.50 (1), she is making a representation not only about materials she personally obtained and disclosed, but about materials obtained by "the prosecution" as a collective entity.

Second, the remaining disciplinary records at issue do not establish a discovery violation. Of the ten files produced on April 10, 2026, nine were duplicates of records previously disclosed on March 10, 2026. The remaining file, titled "DISCLOSURE INDEX- CHICCHETTI 972573 03.13.26.pdf," is an updated version of a disclosure index created on March 13, 2026, two days after the People filed their COC. Thus, the record establishes that the challenged materials were either previously produced or did not exist at the time the COC was filed.

Third, the parties agree that the prisoner movement slip was discoverable and in the People's possession (see CPL 245.20 [1] [e]). However, the failure to disclose the record was an inadvertent error, not indicative of any broader deficiency in the People's discovery efforts, and the defense does not contend that it contains significant information. The court does not view this oversight as bearing meaningfully on the People's diligence.

Fourth, the medical records are not within the People's actual or constructive possession and therefore are not part of the People's initial discovery obligation (People v Haggan, 253 NYS3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]). Neither FDNY nor the complainant's medical providers are law enforcement agencies whose records are constructively possessed by the People (see CPL 245.20 [2]).

The court will now consider the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations holistically (see CPL 245.50 [5]). Even where the People have not satisfied all of their discovery obligations, their COC will not be invalidated where they have "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material" (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 211). In determining whether the People acted with due diligence, the court must consider:

[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] [a]).

Here, the People made substantial, if not timely, efforts to comply with their discovery obligations. While the case was pending as a felony, the People do not appear to have taken any steps to obtain and produce discovery outside of submitting a request for 911 records. However, because the defense was actively waiving speedy-trial time while pursuing a favorable disposition, this delay does not undermine the People's claim of diligence, even if it was not entirely consistent with their statutory obligations (see CPL 245.10 [1] [a] [ii]). Once the case was reduced to a misdemeanor, the People acted promptly. They immediately obtained and reviewed the initial case materials, identified outstanding discovery, and requested those items from the arresting officer. Within two weeks, the People produced initial discovery to the defense, which included over 500 pages of material as well as BWC footage and surveillance video. Subsequently, the People made extensive additional efforts to obtain specific outstanding materials from both the arresting officer and the case detective, and they produced over 600 pages of additional discovery, along with additional BWC footage.

Some of the People's explanations for the delayed disclosures are persuasive. The prisoner movement slip was inadvertently omitted from the discovery produced to the defense, and the court does not view that minor oversight as indicative of a lack of diligence. Likewise, the LED Unit requested IAB log No. 15-22898 from the NYPD in January but had not yet received it. Although the People could have provided a more detailed account of the efforts undertaken to obtain that log, the delay in disclosure is ultimately attributable to the NYPD's failure to provide the record.

The People's explanation for failing to disclose IAB log No. 24-5612 before filing their COC is less persuasive. Although the assigned ADA had not personally received the log, it was in the possession of the prosecution team when the COC was filed. Nonetheless, the record indicates that this error stemmed from a misunderstanding of the People's discovery obligations rather than from any attempt to withhold information or mislead the defense. Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the omission are apparent from the People's own submissions. Under these circumstances, the error does not warrant invalidation of the COC.

Finally, the belatedly disclosed materials are relatively insignificant, especially relative to the voluminous discovery produced before the COC was filed. The defense has not claimed that the two IAB logs contain significant information, or that the delayed production hindered their ability to prepare for trial or was otherwise prejudicial. Further, the People corrected their errors on their own — though they should have done so far sooner.

Considering "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and weighing all relevant factors (CPL 245.50 [5]), the court finds that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide" discoverable materials (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 211). The court does not condone the People's decision to file a COC despite knowing that not all discoverable material in their possession had been disclosed. However, while that error was significant, it does not by itself undermine the People's good faith or the overall adequacy of their efforts, which were otherwise diligent and thorough.

The People's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: July 27, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.