People of the State of New York, X v. Fabian Miller, Defendant. (2026)

FABIAN MILLER (defendant) is charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00 [1]), Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (PL §§ 110/120.00 [1]), and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1]). By motion dated April 20, 2026, defendant moves to invalidate the People's Certificate of Compliance (COC), deem the Statement of Readiness (SOR) illusory, and dismiss the case pursuant to CPL § 30.30; and for such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is GRANTED.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from an incident that allegedly occurred on September 1, 2025, in Kings County, during which the complainant alleges that defendant punched him in the face, causing a broken nose, pushed him, threw the complainant's ice cream at him, and later threw a skateboard in his direction. The complainant took video of the incident and called 911. Defendant was arrested on December 15, 2025. The case commenced when defendant was arraigned the following day, December 16, 2025, on a misdemeanor complaint charging Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00 [1]), Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (PL §§ 110/120.00 [1]), and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1]).

Following arraignment, the prosecution subpoenaed 911 materials but did not request other categories of discovery until February 5, 2026—approximately 51 days after the case began. On February 4, 2026, the prosecution obtained a signed supporting deposition from the complainant and considered that date the point at which they began substantive discovery collection efforts. On February 6, 2026, the prosecution made initial requests for several police-generated materials, including activity logs, photographs of the complainant's injuries, skateboard photographs, vouchers, certain surveillance footage, the prisoner holding pen roster, and related NYPD records.

Additional discovery requests were not made until February 24, 2026, approximately 70 days into the case, when the prosecution sought arrest photos and other items from the arresting officer. On March 16, 2026—the 90th day after commencement— the prosecution made a series of further discovery requests, including expedited 911 records, DD5s, photographs, and activity logs for ten officers. The prosecution filed its COC and SOR on the same date, listing several categories of discovery as outstanding but requested.

Two weeks later, on March 30, 2026, defense counsel sent a conferral email identifying numerous discovery items that had not been disclosed and were either missing entirely or not listed as outstanding in the original COC. These included the complainant's medical records (not yet requested until April 3, day 108), the complete Facial Identification Section (FIS) candidate list, the full communication between certain detectives during the identification process, the prisoner holding pen roster, the wanted flyer repeatedly referenced in DD5s, on-scene photographs visible on body-worn cameras, and underlying Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) materials for several testifying officers.

In response to this conferral, the prosecution filed its first Supplemental Certificate of Compliance (SCOC) on April 6, 2026—111 days after commencement—turning over certain materials including activity logs and photographs. The prosecution stated in that SCOC that it had been unaware of some of these items prior to defense counsel's inquiry. The defense maintains that these materials were routinely generated documents that would have been identified through basic review of existing discovery. On April 15, 2026—120 days into the case—the prosecution filed a second SCOC turning over the wanted flyer and additional Giglio letters. The SCOC again reported that the prosecution had previously been unaware of these materials despite their reference in multiple DD5s.

The defense filed its motion to dismiss on April 20, 2026, in compliance with CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), asserting that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory discovery obligations, that the COC and SOR filed on March 16 were invalid, and that the case remains in a pre-readiness posture. The motion also challenges the People's position that discovery efforts could commence only once a supporting deposition was secured, noting that mandatory discovery obligations attach upon commencement of the criminal action. After the defense filed its motion, the defense submitted a Reply Memorandum on June 5, 2026, expanding on its factual timeline and responding to the People's Affirmation and Memorandum in Opposition.

RELEVANT LAW

When a defendant faces only non-felony charges, including at least one misdemeanor punishable by more than three months, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days of the action's commencement (CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). The People's trial readiness is contingent upon their filing a proper COC, certifying that they have exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose all discoverable material (CPL §§ 245.50 [1], [3]; 30.30 [5]). They may still file a COC despite outstanding discovery if they show diligence, act in good faith, and identify the missing items (CPL § 245.50 [1]).

The criminal discovery framework governing this case is anchored in CPL § 245.50, which requires that a COC be filed only once the prosecution has "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts" to obtain and disclose the discoverable materials specified in CPL § 245.20. Thus, a valid COC must reflect genuine and completed efforts to ascertain relevant discovery; mere formalistic recitations or incomplete searches are not enough (see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 [2023]).

The People must certify that they have, after performing such diligence, disclosed all known discoverable materials, identified any outstanding items, and explained efforts to obtain them. Supplemental Certificates of Compliance must also meet an explicit statutory requirement by detailing reasons for delays to allow the court to assess whether such delays undermine the propriety of the original certificate.

The leading authority, People v Bay, decided by the Court of Appeals, governs the due-diligence standard applicable to discovery compliance. The Court rejected an item-by-item compliance model and instead instructed courts to assess the prosecution's efforts holistically, evaluating whether the People undertook reasonable investigative steps to identify and obtain discoverable material before certifying compliance. In Bay, because the prosecution filed its certificate without identifying key discoverable items already in its possession, the COC was deemed improper and the SOR illusory for speedy-trial purposes.

The Court made clear that belated disclosure of required materials indicates a failure of due diligence at the time of filing and therefore invalidates readiness. The holistic "Bay factors"—which consider efforts made, volume of discovery, explanation for any lapses, and prosecutorial responsiveness—have since been codified in CPL § 245.50 (5) reaffirming that while diligence does not require perfection, it does require a concrete and comprehensive effort to locate existing materials before certifying compliance.

Timing rules under CPL § 245.10 further shape the analysis. That statute, which carries the force of a court order, requires prosecutors to perform their initial discovery obligations "as soon as practicable" but no later than 20 days post-arraignment for custodial defendants and 35 days for non-custodial defendants. The statute permits an additional 30-day extension only when discoverable materials are exceptionally voluminous or, despite diligent good-faith efforts, are not yet in the People's actual possession. Compliance with initial discovery deadlines is essential and courts must examine whether COCs were validly filed before assessing readiness under CPL § 30.30 (see generally People v Pacheco, 83 Misc 3d 1201[A] [Crim Ct Queens Cty 2024]).

CPL § 245.80 provides remedies for noncompliance, directing courts to impose sanctions proportionate to any prejudice suffered. Dismissal may be an appropriate remedy when statutory deadlines are not met, and the prosecution fails to justify its belated or incomplete disclosures.

Finally, because CPL § 30.30 ties prosecutorial readiness directly to the filing of a valid COC, an invalid COC renders any SOR "illusory," causing the speedy-trial clock to continue to run. This principle, grounded in Bay and reaffirmed in subsequent analysis of the discovery reform law, establishes that readiness requires both an actual and legal ability to proceed to trial—an ability contingent upon proper certification of discovery compliance. Courts have consistently held that filing a COC without completing the necessary diligence, or without obtaining discoverable materials already within the prosecution's constructive possession, cannot stop the clock. When more than the statutory number of days accrue without valid readiness—as occurred in Bay—dismissal is required under CPL §§ 30.30 and 170.30.

Taken together, the statutory scheme and controlling case law create a strict but holistic framework: prosecutors must make timely and comprehensive efforts to identify and obtain discoverable material; must meet mandatory deadlines for providing initial discovery; must file certificates only after performing due diligence; must explain in SCOCs any delays in disclosure; and must do so before any readiness declaration can stop the speedy-trial clock.

DISCUSSION

The central issue before the Court concerns whether the People's COC filed on March 16, 2026, was valid under CPL § 245.50, and, consequently, whether the accompanying SOR was effective to stop the speedy-trial clock under CPL § 30.30.

The timeline at issue in this case demonstrates that the prosecution commenced meaningful discovery efforts only after receiving a supporting deposition on February 4, 2026—already fifty days post-arraignment—and did not request most categories of discovery until February 5 (day 51), February 24 (day 70), or March 16 (day 90), the same day the COC was filed. Requests for complainant medical records began even later, on April 3 (day 108), despite early knowledge that the complainant had been treated at Wyckoff Hospital. The People's decision to delay discovery efforts until a supporting deposition was secured is legally erroneous: Article 245 obligates compliance based on arraignment date, not witness cooperation. The prolonged inaction during the 35-day statutory window strongly suggests that due diligence was not exercised before the COC was filed.

Application of the Bay factors here supports a finding that the People's efforts were not diligent overall (see also CPL § 245.50 [5]). Critical items—such as the wanted flyer, on-scene photographs, multiple officers' activity logs, and the full FIS candidate list—were not identified or disclosed until defense counsel brought them to the People's attention, despite the fact that they were referenced in DD5s or visible in other discovery materials. The People's reliance on an officer uninvolved in the FIS process to determine whether the candidate list existed further undermines their claim of reasonable inquiry. The People's SCOCs filed on April 6 and April 15 both reveal that they were unaware of materials routinely generated by NYPD personnel, demonstrating that their initial review of existing discovery was incomplete.

Moreover, CPL § 245.50 (1-a) requires that Supplemental Certificates of Compliance "detail the basis for delayed disclosure." The SCOCs filed in this matter do not explain why routine items were overlooked, nor do they identify barriers to obtaining them. Instead, they merely state that the prosecution became aware of certain items only after defense counsel flagged them. Such explanations fall short of the statutory requirement, and the SCOCs therefore do not cure defects in the original COC. Here, the lack of detail reinforces the conclusion that the original COC was not filed after due diligence had been exercised.

The prosecution contends that any lapses should be excused because they acted in good faith overall and disclosed materials promptly once identified. While Article 245 does not impose a "perfect prosecutor" standard, neither does it permit late-stage discovery efforts to retroactively validate a previously filed COC (see Bay at 232). The statutory language, reinforced by Bay makes clear that diligence must be assessed at the time the COC is filed. Belated disclosure may factor into remedies under CPL § 245.80, but it does not retroactively convert an invalid COC into a valid one.

Because a valid COC is a condition precedent to readiness under CPL § 30.30, the prosecution's March 16, 2026 readiness declaration cannot stop the speedy-trial clock unless the accompanying COC is legally valid. Given the People's failure to meet initial discovery deadlines, failure to conduct timely and adequate inquiry into discoverable materials, failure to disclose routine records before filing, and failure to provide legally sufficient explanations for delayed disclosure, the Court concludes that the COC was not filed after due diligence. Consequently, the SOR was illusory, and the speedy-trial clock continued to run. The defense calculation of 125 chargeable days remains unrefuted, exceeding the ninety-day limit for class A-misdemeanor prosecutions. Under CPL § 170.30 (1) (e) and § 30.30, dismissal is therefore required.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All time from the commencement of the action on December 16, 2025 through the filing of the defense motion on April 20, 2026 remains chargeable (CPL § 30.30 [4] [a]). This period totals 125 includable days, exceeding the applicable 90-day limit under CPL § 30.30 (1).

This constitutes the OPINION, DECISION AND ORDER OF THIS COURT.

DATED: July 17, 2026

KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK

Hon. Juan D. Abreu, J.C.C.

Juan D. Abreu, J.