The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Joshua Dvorin, Defendant. (2026)

In an omnibus motion, the defense moves for an order suppressing post-arrest police observations of the defendant as the product of an arrest without probable cause (Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]); granting a "voluntariness hearing" for unnoticed statements the People intend to introduce at trial (People v Grillo, 176 AD2d 346, 347 [1st Dept 1991]); precluding unnoticed statement and identification testimony; directing the People to comply with a request for a bill of particulars (CPL 200.95); directing supplemental discovery procedures (CPL 245.35); and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial (People v Sandoval, 43 NY2d 371 [1974], People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). The People oppose.

First, the motion to suppress testimony about incriminating post-arrest observations is GRANTED to the extent that a Dunaway hearing is ordered. The parties' allegations create issues of fact that must be resolved at a hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]). The People have not denied that they intend to present testimony regarding post-arrest observations of the defendant at trial.

Second, the motion for preclusion and a voluntariness hearing regarding unnoticed statements is DENIED as the defense has not challenged any specific statements (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; CPL 710.20). The People are directed to notify the defendant as soon as practicable upon deciding to use any unnoticed statement for impeachment or rebuttal purposes, and the defense is granted leave to renew their motion upon receiving such notification (see CPL 710.40 [2], [4]).

The motion for a bill of particulars is DENIED. The People filed a bill of particulars as part of their automatic disclosure form. That document and the accusatory instrument contain all the information the defense has demanded that is authorized in a bill of particulars (see CPL 200.95 [5]).

The motion for a supplemental discovery order is DENIED. The People filed a COC in this case which the defense has not challenged. Of course, the People have a continuing duty to disclose and are required to investigate and turn over all materials favorable to the defense, especially where the defense has made a specific request (CPL 245.60, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990]). The defendant, however, has not demonstrated that court intervention is necessary to ensure the People's compliance with those obligations (see CPL 245.35).

Finally, the motion to preclude evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are directed to provide supplemental discovery to the defense as soon as practicable and at least fifteen days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [b]).

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: May 15, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.