The People of the State of New York v. Germaine Parham, Defendant. (2026)

On February 4, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint charging one count of Petit Larceny (Penal Law [PL] § 155.25) and one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (PL § 165.40). By motion filed on July 15, 2026, the defendant now moves for: (1) a finding that the People's certificate of compliance (COC), supplemental COC (SCOC), and statements of readiness are invalid;¹ (2) dismissal of the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds under CPL 30.30; and (3) reservation of his right to make further motions. On August 6, 2026, the People filed a response opposing the motion. On August 20, 2026, the defendant filed a reply.

For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to invalidate the COCs is denied as procedurally barred. In any event, the defendant's motion to invalidate the COCs is denied on the merits and the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 is denied. The court finds that 54 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 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 in custody, the People must fulfill their initial discovery obligations as soon as practicable, but no later than 20 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 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

The defendant contends that the People's delayed disclosure of certain materials demonstrates a lack of diligence, thereby rendering the COCs invalid. In response, the People argue that the court should deny the defendant's motion as procedurally barred by CPL 245.50(4)(c) and that, in any event, their COCs are valid. Specifically, the People assert that their initial COC was valid at the time it was filed because it was filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence.

A. Chronology of Discovery and Motion Practice

On March 30, 2026, the People served discovery on the defense via eDiscovery. On the same day, the People filed an automatic discovery form (ADF), a discovery list, a COC, and a certificate of readiness (COR) with the court and served these documents by mail on the defense. In the COC, the People stated that the 911 call, radio run, and sprint report had not been disclosed because the People had not yet obtained these materials, despite exercising due diligence to do so. The People further noted that they requested these materials on February 17, 2026. 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 May 13, 2026, the People received the 911 call, radio run, and sprint report. On May 21, 2026, prior to the court appearance that day, the People filed a SCOC noting their disclosure of these materials on that day. In the SCOC, the People explained that the materials were not previously in their actual possession or control, despite their diligent and good faith efforts to obtain them. In the SCOC, the People also restated their readiness for trial. At the court appearance that day, a colleague appeared on behalf of defense counsel, who was out of the office from May 8, 2026 through June 1, 2026, and inquired about the 911 call materials, not knowing that the materials were disclosed earlier that morning. On June 2, 2026, defense counsel emailed the assigned ADA asking if the People had yet to receive the materials, and the assigned ADA responded minutes later to inform defense counsel that the materials were disclosed to counsel on May 21, 2026. On July 15, 2026, defense counsel filed the instant motion.

B. Timeliness and Good Faith Consultation

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 initial COC on March 30, 2026 (see CPL 245.50[4][c]). Here, the defendant filed the instant motion 107 days after service of the initial COC. The defendant correctly contends that a party may challenge the validity of a COC after the 35-day time frame when there is a material change in circumstances, including the belated disclosure of discovery materials (see CPL 245.50[4][c][ii]; Defendant's Reply at § I). However, the court finds that the circumstances in this case do not present a material change in circumstances warranting the extensive delay in the filing of the motion. Notably, the defendant was aware of the outstanding 911 call materials at the time the initial COC was served, as the People indicated their nondisclosure of the materials in the initial COC and ADF. Thus, defense counsel was aware of the outstanding materials long before her absence from the office beginning on May 8, 2026. Nevertheless, the defendant did not file the motion until 55 days after disclosure of the materials on May 21, 2026 and 43 days after defense counsel's email inquiry about the materials on June 2, 2026. While the email inquiry shows that defense counsel conferred with the People about the specific basis for the instant challenge, namely, the 911 call materials, the defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the extensive delay in filing the motion. Accordingly, the defendant's motion challenging the People's COCs is denied as procedurally barred pursuant to CPL 245.50(4)(c). In any event, as discussed below, the court considers the merits of the defendant's motion and declines to invalidate the COCs.

C. Discovery Purported to be Delayed or Outstanding

The defendant contends that the People's belated disclosure of the 911 call materials invalidates their COCs and statements of readiness (see Defendant's Motion at p. 9). He argues that although the People listed the 911 call materials as outstanding in the initial COC, they failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to obtain the materials before filing the COC, including making meaningful follow up efforts after their initial request for the materials (see Defendant's Motion at p. 9; Defendant's Reply at p. 6-7). He further states that the People did not seek a good cause extension of time to make their disclosures (see Defendant's Motion at p. 7). In addition, he asserts that because the 911 call materials were in the possession of law enforcement when the COC was filed, the People were deemed to have possessed them at that time (see Defendant's Motion at p. 8).

In response, the People argue that they made diligent efforts to obtain discovery in this case and that the court must assess their efforts holistically and not item by item (see People's Response at p. 16). They contend that their efforts to obtain discovery materials began almost immediately after arraignment and, amongst such efforts, was their request for the 911 call materials on February 17, 2026 (see People's Response at p. 3-4). They assert that requests to NYPD for 911 call materials typically take weeks or months to fulfill and point out that these materials were the only outstanding materials when the initial COC was filed (see People's Response at p. 17).

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 February 4, 2026, the case commenced, and, shortly thereafter, the People began their efforts to obtain discovery materials. On February 17, 2026, the People requested the 911 call materials from NYPD, and thereafter, they continued their efforts to secure discovery materials. On March 30, 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 May 13, 2026 and then, on May 21, 2026, disclosed the materials to the defense 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 and disclosed the materials promptly 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 911 call materials were the only outstanding materials, and the People complied with CPL 245.50(1) by listing the 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. Also, of note, the People disclosed the 911 call materials prior to defense counsel's inquiry about the materials, and the assigned ADA immediately responded to defense counsel's inquiry, informing counsel that the materials were disclosed 12 days earlier.

D. 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, video recordings, and law enforcement disclosure materials. 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 COCs is denied.

III. CPL 30.30(1): Speedy Trial

February 4, 2026 — February 9, 2026

On February 4, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint charging him with one count of Petit Larceny (PL § 155.25) and one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (PL § 165.40). At that time, the court set bail in the amount of one dollar and adjourned the case to February 9, 2026 for the People to file the necessary supporting depositions. 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 five days.

5 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 5

February 9, 2026 — March 25, 2026

On February 9, 2026, the People filed the two necessary supporting depositions, and the court deemed the complaint an information. The case was then adjourned to March 25, 2026 for the People to file a COC. The speedy trial clock did not toll during this adjournment period, and therefore, the People are charged with 44 days for the entirety of the adjournment.

44 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 49

March 25, 2026 — May 21, 2026

On March 25, 2026, the People were not ready for trial, and the case was adjourned to May 21, 2026 for trial. Thereafter, on March 30, 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 five days from March 25, 2026 until March 30, 2026.

5 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 54

May 21, 2026 — July 16, 2026

On May 21, 2026, the People filed the SCOC with a restatement of readiness for trial. At the court appearance later that day, defense counsel was unavailable and a colleague of defense counsel appeared in court on her behalf. The People again stated ready for trial, but the court adjourned the case to July 16, 2026 for trial. On July 15, 2026, the defendant filed the instant motion off-calendar. As discussed earlier, the SCOC is valid. The court finds that the People's statements of readiness on May 21, 2026 tolled the speedy trial clock for the entirety of this adjournment period. Further, the one day period from July 15, 2026 to July 16, 2026 is excludable for motion practice (see CPL 30.30[4][a]).

0 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 54

July 16, 2026 — September 22, 2026

On July 16, 2026, the People were not ready for trial. However, as the defendant had filed the instant motion, the court set a motion schedule and adjourned the case to September 22, 2026 for decision. Because this adjournment period was occasioned by motion practice, it is excludable (CPL 30.30[4][a]).

0 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 54

Thus, the court finds that there are 54 chargeable days to date.

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

IV. Reservation of Rights

The defendant's motion seeking the right to make further motions is granted to the extent provided for by CPL 255.20(3).

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

Dated: September 22, 2026

New York, New York

E N T E R:

Shirin Zarabi, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In some parts of his motion, the defendant appears to only challenge the initial COC and COR (see Defendant's Motion at § I ¶10; § II ¶17), and, in other parts of his motion, he appears to challenge both COCs and all statements of readiness (see Defendant's Motion at § I ¶7; § II ¶8). Accordingly, the court addresses the validity of both COCs and all statements of readiness in this decision.

Shirin Zarabi, J.