The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Orlando Vega, Defendant. (2026)

The defense moves this court to find the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and to dismiss this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). The People oppose, arguing that the COC motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), and that in the alternative, they exercised due diligence regardless of any lapses in discovery.

I. Relevant Facts

On February 8, 2026, the defendant was charged with violating CPL § 120.00 (1), assault in the third degree, and other related charges. He was arraigned the same day, and the case was adjourned for the People to convert the accusatory instrument and comply with discovery. The People filed a superseding information and supporting deposition on March 26, 2026. They filed their COC and COR on April 15, 2026, followed by a supplemental COC (SCOC) the next day. The defense conferred and on May 11, 2026, requested additional discovery. The People responded the same day and filed a second SCOC on May 13, 2026. The defense filed the instant motion and the People responded. At the court's request, the parties appeared on July 31, 2026, for oral argument on their submissions.

II. The COC Challenge

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

The defense has satisfied the procedural requirements in CPL § 245.50 (4) by filing a timely motion with an affirmation of diligent conferral. The People argue that the defense's efforts to confer were untimely because the defense conferred 26 days after the People filed their COC. The People had eight days to address the discovery issues raised by the defense before the deadline to file a COC challenge under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c). Eight days is not an unreasonable amount of time to meaningfully respond to discovery requests and does not reflect untimely conferral. On the merits of the COC challenge, the defense argues that the People failed to provide police paperwork and evidence, court paperwork, impeachment material, and expert witness information.

A. Evidence at issue

1. Police paperwork and related materials (CPL § 245.20 [1] [e], [g])

The defense argues that the People's COC was filed without a Sprint Report, radio runs, a DAT investigation and verification form, roll call logs, an interrupted patrol log, and 911 calls. The People acknowledge that the Sprint Report and radio runs are discoverable and state that they requested those materials by e-subpoena before filing their COC. The COC listed the Sprint Report and radio runs as outstanding and indicated that, despite due diligence, the People had been unable to obtain them. Once the materials were obtained, the People delayed disclosure pending their review and produced them to the defense one week later, after completing that review. The People further respond that no DAT investigation and verification form or 911 calls exist in connection with the defendant's case.

The People argue that the roll call log and interrupted patrol log are not discoverable because they are administrative documents that do not contain substantive case-related information but instead reflect on-duty officers' assignments and the amount of time they spend in the stationhouse. (see People v Robinson, 87 Misc 3d 1211[A], *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]; People v JMW, 217 NYS 3d 475 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]). Nevertheless, the People are ORDERED to obtain the interrupted patrol log and roll call log and produce them to the defense within two weeks of the date of this decision (see CPL 245.20 [7] [mandating "a presumption in favor of disclosure"]).

2. Court paperwork (CPL § 245.20 [1] [e])

The defense argues that the People did not produce a pre-arraignment notification form. The People respond that this form is an administrative document kept in the court file, not within their custody or control, and equally accessible to both parties.

For information that is not within the People's custody and control, the People must "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information [that is] discoverable . . . and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery" (CPL § 245.20 [2]). For information equally available to both parties, the People's obligation is to notify the defense of the material's existence and provide information sufficient to enable the defense to obtain it (see People v Simmons, 78 Misc 3d 544, 185 NYS3d 891 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2023]; People v Bracy, 88 Misc 3d 129 [A], 248 NYS3d 811 [NY App Term, 2d Dept, 2nd, 11th, 13th & Jud Dists 2026], leave to appeal denied, 2026 WL 2099152 NY [June 26, 2026]). In accordance with CPL § 245.20(2), the People's COC should have identified the pre-arraignment form as discoverable material and indicated where it could be obtained. However, because the form was equally available to both parties, the People were not required to produce it.

3. Impeachment material (CPL § 245.20 [1] [k])

The defense next challenges the People's COC based on the omission of a Central Personnel Index (CPI), which indexes police disciplinary charges and investigations. The People contend that the CPI is duplicative of the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) logs produced with their COC, as those logs contain substantiated and unsubstantiated disciplinary allegations concerning the officers involved in the defendant's case. The People further argue that the CPI is not discoverable, relying on People v Fuentes (45 NY3d 325 [2025]).

Certain disciplinary logs are discoverable, and the Court of Appeals' decision in Fuentes does not hold otherwise (People v Bernal, 88 Misc 3d 1268 [A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Following Fuentes, courts—and, in the first instance, the People—must examine the "impeachment value" of individual disciplinary records to determine whether they are discoverable (Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325). Documents that "disclose[ ] the source and full content of [misconduct] allegations" are discoverable, whereas documents that merely summarize those allegations are not, at least where the underlying source documents have been produced (see id.). The fact that material may be duplicative does not, standing alone, relieve the People of their disclosure obligations. Accordingly, to the extent that the CPI contains information regarding allegations of misconduct that is subject to disclosure under Fuentes, the People are ORDERED to obtain the document and produce it to the defense within two weeks of the date of this decision (see CPL 245.20 [7] [mandating "a presumption in favor of disclosure"]).

4. Expert witness information (CPL 245.20 § [1] [f])

Lastly, the defense argues that the People failed to disclose the name, curriculum vitae, and related information of a potential expert witness. The People respond that they have not yet selected an expert witness but disclosed in their Automatic Discovery Form their intent to call one.

Expert witness information must be disclosed "as soon as practicable not later than sixty calendar days before the first scheduled trial date" (CPL 245.20 § [1] [f]). CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50 do not require the People to disclose a complete and final witness list to file a valid COC and announce ready for trial. While the People still have time to select an expert witness, they are reminded of their disclosure obligations under CPL 245.20 (1) (f).

B. COC and COR validity

The court must assess each of the contested items of discovery within 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]). The court will examine the People's efforts within the factors listed in Bay and CPL § 245.50 (5) (a).

In this case, the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations included steps to gather discovery on February 20, 22, 23, 24, 2026, March 12, 16, 20, 2026, and April 15, 2026. The People concede that the case is not particularly complex but maintain that they disclosed extensive discovery with their COC. Of the eight items challenged by the defense, the 911 calls and DAT investigation form do not exist, and an expert witness has not yet been selected. The attendance logs and CPI, although discoverable, are duplicative of materials already disclosed, while the pre-arraignment notification form is equally available to both parties. The People identified the Sprint Report and radio runs in their COC as outstanding, having previously requested those materials. They also responded to the defense's conferral within an hour and promptly sought to obtain the outstanding materials, disclosing the Sprint Report and radio runs within a reasonable time after receiving them. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the People exercised due diligence before filing their April 15, 2026 COC.

For these reasons, after assessing the factors in CPL § 245.50 (5) (a) and Bay, the defense's motion to invalidate the People's COC and COR is DENIED.

III. CPL § 30.30

In this case, the defendant is charged with a class A misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of up to 364 days and no felonies, and the People must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]).

From the defendant's arraignment on February 8, 2026, to the People's filing of the COC and COR on April 15, 2026, 66 days are chargeable to the People. The People's April 15, 2026 COR was valid, and no delay has been August 20, 2026 attributable to them since that date. The defendant's motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation, or in the alternative for a hearing pursuant to People v Allard (28 NY3d 41 [2016]) is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: August 14, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.