People of the State of New York v. Jaylene P., Defendant. (2026)

To invalidate the People's certificate of discovery compliance, a defendant must prove that a disputed item is relevant and at least in the People's constructive possession. The court previously denied the defendant's motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance because the People turned over the disputed discovery during the conferral period, and because the People claimed that they never got the disputed discovery until the conferral period. The court now grants the defendant's renewal motion and invalidates the People's certificate because the court has now learned that the People actually possessed the critical, disputed discovery.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 22, 2026, the police arrested the defendant for three separately dated criminal incidents allegedly committed against the defendant's ex-boyfriend. At the crime scene, Officer Winsbacher was shown on the complainant's cellular phone videos taken by the complainant of the alleged incident.¹ On the officer's body-worn camera (BWC) footage, Officer Winsbacher can be seen trying to text those videos to himself. Later that day, Officer Winsbacher provided an assistant district attorney ("drafting ADA") information about the defendant's arrest. The court arraigned the defendant the next day. Almost a week later, the case was reassigned to an ADA in the Domestic Violence Bureau ("assigned ADA").

Three months later, the People filed their certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR). Defendant through counsel moved to invalidate the COC, and the People opposed the motion. Relying on the People's sworn affirmation that they did not possess the four videos before filing the COC, and that they got the videos after speaking with the complainant, the court denied the invalidation motion. The next day, the defendant moved to reargue the court's decision and now argue that the court overlooked the defendant's factual allegation that arresting Officer Winsbacher texted the videos to himself. The People opposed reargument and now claim that they did not have the complainant's videos when they filed their COC. In an abundance of caution, the court ordered the People to get an affidavit from the arresting officer as to whether he successfully sent himself the complainant's videos.

Officer Winsbacher submitted a sworn statement saying that he did not remember whether he successfully texted the videos to himself. But the officer looked at his emails from January 22, 2026, the arrest date, and saw an email from himself to the drafting ADA with the complainant's videos attached to that email. The assigned ADA also submitted an affirmation. She explained that drafting ADAs in the Early Case Assessment Bureau ("ECAB") speak with police officers, assess evidence known to them, and decide the appropriate charges against a defendant. When the police give the drafting ADA any electronic discovery material, the drafting ADA should upload the material to the Folder Tracking System ("FTS"), and that material is later uploaded to the Bronx District Attorney's Case Management System ("CMS"). When the assigned ADA received the case, she reviewed the files in the CMS and did not see any videos. Finally, the assigned ADA learned that Officer Winsbacher emailed the videos to the drafting ADA only when she interviewed the officer, pursuant to the court's request for the affidavit.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

A motion to reargue or renew is addressed to the court's discretion.² A motion to reargue must be based on facts or law the court allegedly overlooked or misapprehended, when the court determined the prior order.³ A regargument motion does not "permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided."⁴ Nor may the movant offer new facts or arguments not previously raised.⁵ A renewal motion, on the other hand, is a motion based on new facts or a change in the law that would change the court's prior determination.⁶ And the movant must justify the failure "to present such facts on the prior motion."⁷ But reargument motions are not granted "to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation."⁸ Here, while the defendant only reargued the court's prior decision, the court will construe the motion as a renewal motion and grants the renewal motion. As for reargument, the court did not overlook the defendant's averment that the officer may have transmitted the complainant's videos to himself. At the time of the omnibus motion, the defendant lacked evidence that the officer successfully transmitted the videos to himself, and the prosecution affirmed it did not have the videos before asking the complainant.

Reargument is also inappropriate because the defendant's discovery conferral efforts were insufficient to adequately put the People on notice that they may have actually possessed the disputed videos. As of August 7, 2025, before a party may challenge the validity of the opposing party's COC, the party must file an affirmation attesting to the party's good faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel. Specifically, the attorney must affirm: "such moving party timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the opposing party or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached."⁹ Here, defense counsel emailed the assigned assistant, complaining that 16 discovery items had not been turned over to the defense. The third objection was about the complainant's four videos of the alleged unlawful imprisonment. Defense counsel wrote, "Video of the alleged incident taken on CWs [sic] phone referred to in the BWC."¹⁰ The discovery objection was inadequate for a few reasons. For one, defense counsel failed to tell the People which of the four disclosed body-worn cameras defense counsel was referring to. For two, defense counsel never alerted the People that the officer could be seen trying to send himself the complainant's videos. And for three, from the vague description of "referred to in the BWC," the People could reasonably assume that the complainant only told the police that he had videos of the incident, and not that the police saw or tried to get those videos. Thus, the discovery conferral fell short. But for Officer's Winsbacher's recent affidavit, the court would not have invalidated the People's certificate of compliance because the People were, under a totality of the circumstances, diligent in their discovery efforts.¹¹

But, based on the recent affidavit, there is new evidence proving that the prosecution possessed the complainant's videos before certifying its CPL 245.20 compliance — a valid basis for a renewal motion. And defense counsel justifiably did not present that fact in the original motion because the court ordered the officer's affidavit after defense counsel moved for reargument. Generally, discovery turned over during the 35-day conferral period will cure or mitigate discovery shortcomings.¹² But when the belated discovery prejudices a defendant's trial preparation or plea consideration, the discovery lapse is a major shortcoming warranting invalidation of the People's certificate of compliance.¹³ The court cannot think of a more critical piece of evidence than video footage depicting the alleged crime. Failing to turn over to the defense the most critical evidence that the People actually possess indicates an utter lack of due diligence. Thus, the court grants the renewal motion and invalidates the People's COC.

After analyzing the discovery issue, the court now turns to the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument for a violation of statutory speedy trial. Here, the top charge is an A misdemeanor, so the People had 90 days to answer ready for trial. The People filed the accusatory instrument on January 23, 2026, which started the speedy trial clock.¹⁴ While the People filed and served their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness on April 15, 2026, the court has invalidated the certificate, which renders the readiness statement illusory.¹⁵ When the People filed and served their supplemental certificate of compliance with a new statement of readiness on May 15, 2026, the speedy trial clock stopped. But, between January 23 and May 15, 112 days elapsed, exceeding the People's allotted time.

Based on the reasoning above, it is

ORDERED that the court exercises its discretion and GRANTS the renewal motion; it is further

ORDERED that the court GRANTS the motion to invalidate the certificate of compliance and DEEMS the People's April 15 statement of readiness illusory; it is further

ORDERED that the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument because the People exceeded their statutory speedy trial period; it is further

ORDERED that the court stays sealing for 30 days.

This is the court's decision and order.

Dated: August 25, 2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Harold E. Bahr, III, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The court reviewed the four videos filmed by the complainant. All four videos are of the January 22 incident, when the defendant allegedly unlawfully imprisoned the complainant.

2.    Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 (1st Dept 1979).

3.   CPLR 2221 (d).

4.    Foley, 68 AD2d at 567.

5.    Ibid.

6.   CPLR 2221 (e) (2).

7.   CPLR 2221 (e) (3).

8.    Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hasty, 247 AD3d 715, 716 (2d Dept 2026) (internal citations omitted).

9.   CPL 245.50 (4) (c).

10.   Omnibus, at 50 (exhibit C).

11.   CPL 245.50 (5) (a) (lists ten, non-exclusive factors that courts must consider to determine whether the People exercised due diligence).

12.    See People v R. Dixon, 88 Misc 3d 1266(A), at 7 (Crim Ct, Bronx County 2026, Goodwin, J.) (reasoning that if the defense receives missing discovery during the conferral period, defense counsel may not be able to affirm that no discovery accommodation could be reached); see also People v Whitney, 88 Misc 3d 905, 914 (Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025, David, J.) (concluding that the defense cannot file a motion to invalidate a certificate of compliance when the defense received disputed discovery during the conferral period).

13.   See generally R. Dixon, 88 Misc 3d at 8 (collecting cases on the importance of body-worn camera footage).

14.   CPL 100.05 ("A criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument with a criminal court.")

15.   CPL 30.30 (5) (a) ("The court may deem the people not ready for trial based on the people's failure to comply with the provisions of [CPL 245.20] only if it finds that the people's certificate of compliance that accompanied . . . the people's statement of readiness at issue was invalid under section 245.50 of this chapter").

Harold E. Bahr, III, J.