The People of the State of New York v. Gregory Taran, Defendant. (2026)

On March 11, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint charging one count of Forcible Touching (Penal Law [PL] § 130.52[1]) and one count of Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree (PL § 130.55). By motion filed on July 7, 2026, the defendant now moves for: (1) a finding that the People's initial certificate of compliance and accompanying statement of readiness are invalid; and (2) dismissal of the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds under CPL 30.30. On July 21, 2026, the People filed a response opposing the motion. Although the defendant was afforded the opportunity to file reply papers, he declined to do so.

For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to invalidate the certificate of compliance is denied and the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 is denied. The court finds that 89 days are charged to the People.

I. Applicable Law

Pursuant to CPL 30.30(1), the applicable speedy trial period is determined by the highest offense charged in the accusatory instrument. Here, the top count charged on the accusatory instrument is a misdemeanor punishable by a term of incarceration not to exceed 364 days (PL § 70.15[1]). Accordingly, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the criminal action, less any excludable time (CPL 30.30[1][b], [4]). The criminal action began when the accusatory instrument was filed against the defendant in criminal court (CPL 1.20[17] [a "criminal action is commenced by filing of the accusatory instrument against a defendant in a criminal court . . ."]; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351, 355-356 [1980] [the point of commencement of an action for speedy trial purposes is the date on which the first accusatory instrument was filed]). The People attain trial readiness by declaring their actual readiness in open court or by filing a certificate of actual readiness with the court and serving a copy on defense counsel (People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 [1985]).

The defendant has the initial burden under CPL 30.30 to demonstrate by sworn allegations of fact that there has been an inexcusable delay beyond the time limit set forth in the statute (People v Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 [1986]). Upon such a showing, the People bear the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to statutory exclusions of time (People v Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 403 [2016]; People v Santana, 80 NY2d 92, 105 [1992]). In the post-readiness context, the burden is on the People to ensure that the record of a proceeding "is sufficiently clear to enable the court considering [a] CPL 30.30 motion to make an informed decision as to whether the People should be charged" with the delay (People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201, 215-216 [1992]; People v Stirrup, 91 NY2d 434, 440 [1998]). The Court of Appeals has clarified that the legislature linked the speedy trial requirements set out in CPL 30.30 to the People's discovery obligations under CPL 245.20 (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 209-210 [2023]).

Under CPL 245.20(1), the People's initial disclosure obligations extend to 21 enumerated categories of discoverable material, along with a catch-all provision that further requires disclosure of "any other material or information relevant to the subject matter of the charges . . . in the instant case or a defense thereto." To satisfy this obligation, the People are required to "make a diligent, good faith effort" to ascertain what discoverable material exists and, where such material is not already in the prosecutor's possession, custody, or control, to take steps "to cause such material . . . to be made available for discovery" (CPL 245.20[2]). The People must also work to maintain a sufficient flow of information between their office and law enforcement so that discoverable materials come within their possession or control (CPL 245.55[1]). Notably, "all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the [People's] possession" (CPL 245.20[2]). And significantly, the statute establishes that "[t]here shall be a presumption in favor of disclosure" (CPL 245.20[7]).

Once the People have satisfied their initial discovery obligations under CPL 245.20(1), they must serve and file a certificate of compliance (COC) pursuant to CPL 245.50. The COC must state 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 material subject to discovery (CPL 245.50[1]). The COC must also identify the items disclosed, as well as any discoverable items of which the People are aware but which they were unable to obtain despite exercising due diligence (id.). Where, as here, the defendant is not in custody, the People must fulfill their initial discovery obligations as soon as practicable, but no later than 35 days after arraignment (CPL 245.10[1][a][ii]).

The filing of a valid COC is a prerequisite to the People being deemed ready for trial (CPL 245.50[3]; People v Lobato, 66 Misc 3d 1230[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50322[U] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020]). If additional discoverable material comes to light after an initial COC has been filed, the People must serve and file a supplemental certificate of compliance (SCOC), noting the newly disclosed material and explaining the basis for the delayed disclosure, "so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the [COC]" (CPL 245.50[1], [1-a]). Absent a finding of special circumstances, the People cannot be deemed ready for trial for purposes of CPL 30.30 unless and until they have filed a valid COC (CPL 245.50[3]).

A defense challenge to the validity of a COC must be by motion within 35 days of service of the certificate, unless an extension has been granted by the court (CPL 245.50[4][c]). Further, the challenge must be accompanied by an affirmation that, after the COC was filed, the defense timely conferred with the People in good faith or made good faith efforts to timely confer about the specific basis for the challenge, that efforts to obtain missing discovery or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached (CPL 245.50[4][c]).

The People have "the burden of establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries before filing the initial COC despite a belated or missing disclosure" (Bay at 213). In assessing the People's due diligence to meet their disclosure obligations, the court shall look at the totality of the People's efforts to comply with Article 245, rather than assess their efforts item by item (CPL 245.50[5]). The court's finding shall be based upon consideration of all relevant factors, and no one factor shall be determinative (CPL 245.50[5][b]). The relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. the efforts made by the People to comply with the statutory requirements;

2. the volume of the discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding;

3. the complexity of the case;

4. whether the People knew that the belatedly disclosed or missing material existed;

5. the explanation for any discovery lapse;

6. the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery;

7. whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied;

8. whether the omission was corrected;

9. whether the People self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention;

10. whether the People'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]). Importantly, the mere fact that an item of discovery is disclosed after a COC is filed does not necessarily invalidate that COC (Bay at 212). Rather, a COC may be found valid where it is "filed in 'good faith and reasonable under the circumstances' despite the belated discovery" (People v Gaskin, 214 AD3d 1353, 1355 [4th Dept 2023]; see People v Lee, 249 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2026]; People v Haggan, 248 AD3d 660, 660-61 [1st Dept 2026]; CPL 245.50[1]). "[T]he key question in determining if a proper COC has been filed is whether the prosecution has 'exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery.' Although the statute nowhere defines 'due diligence,' it is a familiar and flexible standard that requires the People 'to make reasonable efforts' to comply with statutory directives" (Bay at 211 [citations omitted]). Whether the People made reasonable efforts "is fundamentally case-specific" and "will turn on the circumstances presented" (id. at 212). "[T]he statute does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecutor' " (id.).

Notably, subsequent disclosures and a supplemental COC cannot cure the prosecution's failure to exercise due diligence before filing its initial COC. If due diligence cannot be established, the COC "should be deemed improper [and] the readiness statement stricken as illusory" (Bay at 213).

II. Certificate of Compliance

On June 8, 2026, the People filed an automatic discovery form (ADF), a Rosario and discovery list, a COC, and a certificate of readiness (COR). In the COC, the People stated that the 911 call and radio run had not been disclosed because the People had not yet obtained these materials, despite exercising due diligence to do so. In the electronic evidence section of the ADF, the People listed the 911 call and radio run but noted that these items were not in the People's physical possession at that time. On June 23, 2026, the People filed a SCOC noting their disclosure of these 911 call materials and a certificate of licensure on that day. In the SCOC, the People explained that the 911 call materials were not previously in their actual possession or control, despite their diligent and good faith efforts to obtain them. Additionally, the People stated that the certificate of licensure did not exist when the initial COC was filed.¹ Along with the SCOC, the People filed an ADF, a Rosario and discovery list, and a COR.

The defendant argues that the People's delayed disclosure of the 911 call materials invalidates the initial COC and accompanying statement of readiness. He states that although the People listed the materials as outstanding in the COC, they failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to obtain them before filing the COC. Further, he asserts that because these materials were in the possession of law enforcement when the COC was filed, the People were deemed to have possessed them at that time.

In response, the People contend that the court should deny the defendant's motion as procedurally barred by CPL 245.50(4)(c). They assert that defense counsel did not meaningfully confer with them about discovery issues prior to filing the instant motion and did not include with his motion an affirmation attesting to, among other things, his efforts to diligently confer, as required by CPL 245.50(4)(c). Additionally, the People state that defense counsel could not attest, as required, that efforts to obtain the 911 call materials or resolve the issue were unsuccessful because they disclosed the materials to him before he inquired about them. The People further contend that the COC was valid at the time it was filed because it was filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence. Specifically, they claim that they made multiple efforts to obtain the 911 call materials and assert that, upon receiving the materials, they promptly disclosed them to the defense.

1. Timeliness and Good Faith Consultation

At the outset, the court declines to deny the defendant's motion as procedurally barred. The 35-day time frame for the defendant to file a motion challenging the validity of the COC began to run from service of the COC on June 8, 2026 (see CPL 245.50[4][c]). Thus, the filing of the motion on July 7, 2026, was timely. Further, prior to filing the defense motion, defense counsel emailed the assigned ADA to inquire about the People's efforts to obtain the 911 call materials prior to the filing of their COC. As such, the court finds that the defendant satisfied the requirement that he make good faith efforts to confer with the People about the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for his challenge (see id.). Notably, both parties were aware of the outstanding 911 call materials at the time the COC was filed, as the People indicated their nondisclosure of the materials in the COC and ADF. In addition, defense counsel's affirmation in support of the instant motion demonstrates to the court that, despite conferring with the People, efforts to resolve the discovery compliance issue were unsuccessful. Accordingly, the court addresses the merits of the defense challenge below.

2. Diligence in Obtaining and Disclosing the 911 Call Materials

Under CPL 245.20, the People are required to disclose 911 calls and any related documentation in connection with the instant case (CPL 245.20[1][e],[g]). On March 11, 2026, the case commenced, and, on March 18, 2026, the People requested materials from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit, including the 911 call and radio run. Thereafter, the People continued their efforts to obtain discovery materials. When the People had still not received the 911 call materials, the assigned ADA followed up with another request on June 4, 2026. On June 8, 2026, the People filed their initial COC and indicated therein that they had not yet received the 911 call materials. The People received the materials on June 23, 2026, disclosed them to the defense that same day, and filed a SCOC reflecting the disclosure.

The court finds that the People were sufficiently diligent in their efforts to obtain the 911 call materials and meet their automatic discovery obligations. The People requested the materials shortly after commencement of the case, followed up on their request, and disclosed the materials immediately upon receiving them (see People v Speed, 244 AD3d 1734 [4th Dept 2025][COC deemed valid where People received 911 calls after filing COC and disclosed them one week after receipt]; cf. People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023][COC deemed invalid where People initially speculated there was no 911 call, did not detail efforts to ascertain the existence of a call, and then obtained and disclosed the call after multiple defense inquiries]; People v Adams, 88 Misc 3d 131[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50233[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2026][COC deemed invalid where People failed to timely disclose 911 call materials or detail efforts to obtain them but nevertheless listed them as disclosed in COC]). Additionally, the People complied with CPL 245.50(1) by listing the 911 call materials as outstanding in the initial COC. Importantly, this statutory provision permits the People to validly certify compliance with their disclosure obligations even when materials remain undisclosed, so long as the People exercised due diligence to obtain the materials. Further, the People disclosed the 911 call materials prior to defense counsel's conferral about the materials, and the assigned ADA promptly responded to his subsequent inquiry about the People's efforts to obtain them.

3. Validity of the Certificate of Compliance

At the time the People filed the COC, they had disclosed a large number of files to the defense, as shown by their ADF and list of disclosures, including NYPD arrest paperwork, activity logs, body worn camera footage and metadata, photos, surveillance video recordings, law enforcement disciplinary records, messages with the complainant, and notes by the assigned ADA. Having examined the totality of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations, and viewing those efforts holistically in light of the relevant factors set forth in CPL 245.50(5), the court finds that the People exercised due diligence, made reasonable inquiries, and acted in good faith before filing the initial COC (see Bay at 211-212). Thus, the defendant's motion to invalidate the initial COC is denied.

III. CPL 30.30(1): Speedy Trial

March 11, 2026 — April 22, 2026

On March 11, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint charging him with Forcible Touching (PL § 130.52[1]) and Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree (PL § 130.55). He was released on his own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to April 22, 2026 for the People to file the necessary supporting deposition and a certificate of compliance. As the speedy trial clock did not toll during this period, the entire period is charged to the People. "New York courts have consistently held that, when computing a period of days, the first day is excluded but the last day is included" (People v DiMeglio, 294 AD2d 239 [1st Dept 2002]; People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765 [1987]). Accordingly, the People are charged with 42 days. 42 TOTAL DAYS CHARGED

April 22, 2026 — June 15, 2026

On April 22, 2026, the People sought to file a supporting deposition, but the court rejected the document because it did not identify the deponent. The case was then adjourned to June 15, 2026 for the People to file a proper supporting deposition. On June 5, 2026, the People filed the necessary supporting deposition. Thereafter, on June 8, 2026, the People filed the initial COC and COR. As previously discussed, the COC is valid, and the court finds that the COR is effective. Because the COR effectively tolled the speedy trial clock, the People are only charged with the 47 days from April 22, 2026 until June 8, 2026. 89 TOTAL DAYS CHARGED

June 15, 2026 — August 13, 2026

On June 15, 2026, the defendant requested a motion schedule to file the instant motion. Accordingly, the court set a motion schedule and adjourned the case to August 13, 2026 for its decision. Because this adjournment period was occasioned by motion practice, it is excludable (CPL 30.30[4][a]). 89 TOTAL DAYS CHARGED

Thus, the court finds that there are 89 chargeable days to date.

Since less than 90 days are charged, the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30 is denied (CPL 30.30[1][b]). In addition, the defendant's request for a hearing to determine the total chargeable time is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the court.

Dated: August 13, 2026

New York, New York

E N T E R:

Shirin Zarabi, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the SCOC indicates that there is an appendix providing further explanation for these delayed disclosures, the People confirmed in their email communications with defense counsel that no such appendix exists (see Defendant's Motion, Exhibit C).

Shirin Zarabi, J.