The People of the State of New York, v. Anibal Colon, Defendant. (2026)

By motion dated May 12, 2026, defendant moved for an order deeming the People's Certificate of Compliance ("CoC") and accompanying Statement of Readiness ("SoR") illusory pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 245.50 and 30.30 (5) and ordering the prosecution to comply with its discovery mandate pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50 (1). Additionally, the defense seeks an order suppressing statement and identification evidence pursuant to CPL § 710.30 or, alternatively, granting a Huntley/Dunaway and Wade/Crews/Rodriguez hearing and precluding the prosecution from introducing evidence of defendant's prior arrests, convictions or bad acts or, alternatively, for a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing. The prosecution opposes the motion in its entirety.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the People's CoC and SoR dated March 24, 2026, were VALID; and further that:

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was TIMELY; and

Defendant's request for a pre-trial hearing pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway and Wade/Crews/Rodriguez is GRANTED; and

The People are DIRECTED to serve color photographs of the complainant's injuries, video of the alleged assault involving defendant and K.C.¹ , and the ICAD report which were disclosed contemporaneously with the People's CoC filing on March 24, 2026, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty (20) days of this Decision; and

The People are DIRECTED to obtain and disclose activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdulla, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty (20) days of this Decision; and

The People are DIRECTED to disclose device audit trails attendant to previously disclosed BWC video footage, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty (20) days of this Decision, and to COMPLY with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL § 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2); and

Sandoval/Ventimiglia issues are REFERRED to the trial court.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2025, defendant Anibal Colon was arrested and charged with violating PL §§ 120.00 (1) (assault in the third degree), 135.05 (unlawful imprisonment in the second degree), 120.15 (menacing), all misdemeanors, and 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a violation. Defendant was arraigned on December 24 and released on his own recognizance.

The People filed and served their automatic disclosures, CoC and SoR" off calendar on March 24, 2026. Additionally, on February 11, the People filed their Superseding Information ("SSI") upon which defendant was contemporaneously arraigned. At the appearance held on March 26, the court deemed the complaint an information. At the appearance held on March 30, the court set the instant motion schedule. Defendant's omnibus motion was filed on May 12, which the People opposed on June 12, 2026.

DISCUSSION

I. The Parties' Arguments

Defendant

Defendant asserts that the prosecution's CoC and SoR are illusory because the People failed to fulfill their discovery mandate pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50 (1) (defense memorandum of law at II). Specifically, counsel identifies five items, all automatically discoverable, which the People failed to disclose prior to their certification, to wit: color photographs of the complainant's injuries; video taken by the complainant which depicts the alleged assault; the ICAD; activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdulla; and BWC audit trail logs (id.). Defendant further posits that the case has no ameliorating factors to excuse the People's lack of diligence where the volume of discovery is not substantial, the case is not complex, the missing discovery should have been apparent to the assigned ADA, and the prosecution had not self-reported nor requested additional time to correct the omission (defense memorandum of law at III).

Defendant contends that the discovery lapse has impeded counsel's ability to prepare for trial (defense memorandum of law at IV). Lastly, defendant moves to suppress statement and identification evidence, preclude evidence of prior bad acts and convictions, or seeks hearings pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway, Wade/Crews/Rodriguez and Sandoval/Ventimiglia (id.).

The People

Initially, the assigned ADA states that 23 color photographs of the complainant's injuries and four videos depicting the alleged assault were disclosed via OneDrive at the time of the CoC and SoR filing on March 24, 2026, screenshots of which are attached to the People's opposition as exhibits 1 and 2, respectively (People's affirmation at 8). Moreover, the People maintain that the ICAD report, 911 call, radio run and event chronology were also disclosed when they filed the CoC (People's affirmation at 9). While conceding that activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdulla have not been disclosed, the People aver that their CoC should not be invalidated because they exercised due diligence by following up for the logs from December 29, 2025, to June 12, 2026, by email, text and phone (People's affirmation at 9-10). However, the People argue that audit logs are not automatically discoverable nor do they relate to the subject matter of the case, and the People deny that the undisclosed audit and activity logs have prejudiced defendant's ability to prepare for trial (People's affirmation at 11).

Additionally, the People consent to defendant's request for a Huntley hearing, oppose defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence and request for a Wade/Crews/Dunaway hearing, oppose the motion to preclude evidence of prior arrests, convictions and bad acts, and ask that Sandoval/Ventimiglia issues be referred to the trial court (People's affirmation at 13-18).

II. Applicable Legal Standard

The CoC Challenge

In People v Bay, the Court of Appeals found that, in evaluating prosecutorial due diligence, the "key question in determining if a proper certificate of compliance has been filed is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to determine the existence of material and information subject to discovery," a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar (see Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-213 [2023] [emphasis added]; CPL §§ 245.20 [1], 245.50 [1]).

The August 2025 amendments to New York's discovery law include one notable change which provides that the People are no longer required to serve automatic discovery before filing their CoC if they demonstrate that they exercised due diligence and acted in good faith to fulfill their disclosure mandate (see CPL § 245.50 [1] [emphasis added]).

Moreover, the 2025 Legislative reforms enumerate several factors a court must consider when adjudicating discovery due diligence, including the volume of disclosures, whether the prosecution's lapse was self-reported, if the omission was corrected and whether the assigned ADA knew that missing or belatedly disclosed information existed (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a]). However, the statute specifically provides that the court's determination shall be based on the totality of the party's efforts to comply rather than any one factor referenced therein (see CPL §§ 245.50 [5] [a], [b] [emphasis added]).

The CPL § 30.30 Challenge

In a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1), the defendant has the initial burden to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to declare trial readiness within the statutorily prescribed time, 90 days (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]); People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78 [1995]). The burden then shifts to the People to identify excludable delays (see Luperon, 85 NY2d at 78).

Additionally, the prosecution must declare readiness for trial on the record (see People v England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994] ["Trial readiness in CPL § 30.30 means both a communication of readiness by the People on the record and an indication of present readiness"] citing Kendzia at 337). Lastly, the People must satisfy their statutory obligation pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (3), which provides that "the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section" (see id.).

III. The Court's Analysis

Disclosed Items: Color Photographs of Complainant's Injuries, Video of Incident and ICAD Report

The Court has reviewed three full-screen screenshots annexed as exhibits to the People's opposition which illustrate by date-stamp that numerous JPEG and MP4 images/files were disclosed on March 24 (People's affirmation, exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Although exhibit 4 is clearly identifiable as a two-page ICAD Log Response report, the date of disclosure is not apparent. While exhibits to the motion corroborate that on April 23 and May 12, defense counsel sought to confer about missing discovery, the record also appears to demonstrate that the People did not belatedly disclose the color photographs, video of the alleged assault and the ICAD report. Accordingly, the People are directed to serve color photographs of the complainant's injuries, video of the alleged assault involving defendant and K.C., and the ICAD report which were disclosed contemporaneously with the People's CoC filing on March 24, 2026, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty days of this Decision

Outstanding Discovery: Audit Trail Logs and Activity Logs

The assigned ADA claims that audit trail logs are not automatic disclosures pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1), however, this Court finds that, although unsettled by appellate guidance, the People had no authority to preemptively withhold potentially discoverable information in the audit trail logs pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (e). Moreover, this Court holds that audit trail logs concerning BWC footage for the subject arrest do relate to the subject matter of the case.

This Court finds the People's insistence that audit trails lack any factual assertions or description of the charges relative to the subject matter to be unavailing because the NYPD Patrol Guide Procedure Number 212-123, which governs the use of Body-Worn Cameras, provides, in pertinent part, that the arresting officer/assigned officer is required to annotate BWC footage in an Activity Log describing the circumstances of the encounter, investigation or arrest document and that if a "category that identifies [the] incident is not available, enter pertinent details of event in the description section of evidence detail page. Hence, these mandated annotations to BWC footage, which are not constrained by fixed dropdown categories, are automatically discoverable as police reports" (see People v Rollerson, 82 Misc 3d 1212[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50291[U], *3 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024]; see also New York City Police Department Patrol Guide Procedure No. 212-123, ¶¶ 12-13). Thus, the People are directed to disclose audit trails logs attendant to BWC video footage previously disclosed, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty days of this Decision.

Concerning the missing activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdulla, the assigned ADA has detailed the People's efforts to obtain what trial courts have referred to as "a central discovery document: the main officer's activity log for the period covering the incident in this case" (see e.g. People v. Lantigua, 86 Misc 3d 1242[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51193[U], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]).

Here, the People first requested the activity logs on December 29, 2025, from their Discovery Liaison at the 43rd Precinct. They followed up on February 26, 2026, and on March 16, P.O. Naqvi was directed to appear at the BXDA's Office with the activity logs and other outstanding materials. Although the NYPD did respond with some items, on March 19, another email was sent concerning still missing discovery. On April 6, the 43rd Precinct was contacted again and the People were again advised that the materials were forthcoming. The same assurances were made after another call to the 43rd Precinct on May 4, and on June 12, the assigned ADA contacted the 43rd Precinct's squad desk for the outstanding discovery, to no avail (People's affirmation at 9).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the record demonstrates the People's repeated efforts over several months to secure the outstanding logs. However, insofar as the activity logs may have probative value concerning the officers' probable cause, the People are directed to obtain and disclose activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdulla, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty days of this Decision.

Due Diligence

All the materials in dispute- color photographs of the complainant's injuries, video of the alleged assault, ICAD report, device audit trail logs and activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdullah- are deemed to have been automatically discoverable. However, three of the five disputed items appear to have been disclosed when the CoC was filed. Additionally, the People have recited numerous attempts to obtain outstanding activity logs.

While the record confirms that the prosecution refused to disclose audit trail logs, this sole instance of non-compliance does not suffice to invalidate the CoC where both the Bay Court and the 2025 Legislative amendments to CPL § 245.50 (5) instruct courts to adjudicate due diligence based upon "a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar" and provide that the court's determination shall be based on the "totality of the party's efforts to comply rather than any one factor referenced therein" (see Bay at 212; see also CPL § 245.50 [5] [a] [emphasis added]). The record at bar establishes that the People demonstrated due diligence in their efforts to comply with their discovery obligations.

IV.The CPL § 30.30 Calculation

Generally, a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant, and it is settled law that the date on which the action is commenced is excluded from the CPL § 30.30 computation (see CPL § 1.20 [17]; see also People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Accordingly, the People's speedy trial time began to accrue on December 25, 2025, the day following defendant's arraignment. The People's CoC and SoR dated March 24, 2026, were valid and, thus, the People declared readiness within their statutorily prescribed time (December 25, 2025 — March 24, 2026 = 90 days) (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]).

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Court FINDS that the People's CoC and SoR dated March 24, 2026, were VALID; and further that:

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was TIMELY; and

Defendant's request for a pre-trial hearing pursuant to Huntley/Dunaway and Wade/Crews/Rodriguez is GRANTED; and

The People are DIRECTED to serve color photographs of the complainant's injuries, video of the alleged assault involving defendant and K.C., and the ICAD report which were disclosed contemporaneously with the People's CoC filing on March 24, 2026, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty (20) days of this Decision; and

The People are DIRECTED to obtain and disclose activity logs for P.O. Shuvo and P.O. Abdulla, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty (20) days of this Decision; and

The People are DIRECTED to disclose device audit trails attendant to previously disclosed BWC video footage, accompanied by a supplemental CoC, within twenty (20) days of this Decision, and to COMPLY with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL § 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2); and

Sandoval/Ventimiglia issues are REFERRED to the trial court.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.

Dated: August 17, 2026

Bronx, New York

HON. YADHIRA GONZÁLEZ-TAYLOR, A.J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   For privacy considerations, the complainant's name has been redacted pursuant to Rule 12.4 (f) of the Official New York Law Reports Style Manual.

Yadhira González-Taylor, J.