The People of the State of New York v. Allen Hoard, Defendant. (2026)

On March 16, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint charging one count of Public Lewdness (Penal Law [PL] § 245.00[a]). By motion filed on June 22, 2026, the defendant now moves for: (1) a finding that the People's May 15, 2026 certificate of compliance (COC) and May 19, 2026 supplemental COC (SCOC) are invalid;¹ and (2) an order deferring the requirement that he file a COC until 30 calendar days after the People file and serve a valid COC. On August 3, 2026, the People filed a response opposing the motion. OnAugust 13, 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 further denied on the merits.

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 not in custody, the People must fulfill their initial discovery obligations as soon as practicable, but no later than 35 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 failed to timely disclose certain discovery materials, either by sharing them belatedly or not at all. He argues that these delayed disclosures and omissions demonstrate 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). The People further 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. Specifically, they argue that the materials referenced by the defendant in his motion are not automatically discoverable.²

A. Chronology of Discovery and Motion Practice

On May 15, 2026, the People served discovery on the defense via eDiscovery. On the same day, the People filed an automatic discovery form (ADF), a Rosario and discovery list, a COC, and a certificate of readiness (COR) with the court and served these documents by email on defense counsel. In the COC, the People stated that the radio run, sprint report, ICAD report, and updated law enforcement disclosures had not been disclosed because, despite requesting these items, the People had not yet obtained them. In the "electronic evidence" section of the ADF, the People listed the radio run but noted that it was not in the People's physical possession at that time. In the "further disclosures" section of the ADF, the People noted their pending request for Brady/Giglio/Geaslen materials. On May 18, 2026, the People received the ICAD report and updated law enforcement disclosures for Detective Karon Porter. On the following day, May 19, 2026, the People filed a SCOC noting their disclosure of these materials on that day. In the SCOC, the People explained that the ICAD report was not previously in their actual possession or control, despite their diligent and good faith efforts to obtain it and specifically described their efforts to acquire it. Additionally, the People explained that the updated disclosures for Officer Porter did not exist when the initial COC was filed. The People also noted that their requests for the radio run, sprint report, and updated law enforcement disclosures were still outstanding.

On June 2, 2026, defense counsel emailed the People about various items believed to be outstanding. On the following day, the People acknowledged receipt of defense counsel's email, and then, on June 14, 2026, the People addressed each item raised by defense counsel. On June 22, 2026, the defendant filed the instant motion. At the next court appearance on July 13, 2026, the court set a motion schedule. Having received multiple law enforcement disclosure materials for Detective Porter as well as Police Officers Krystelle Smiley and Kevin Moise on various dates after filing their initial COC and May 19, 2026 SCOC, the People disclosed these materials to the defendant on August 2, 2026. On the same day, the People filed a SCOC noting these disclosures. In this SCOC, the People indicated that all but two of these disclosures did not exist at the time of the initial COC or the May 19, 2026 SCOC. The People further explained that two items related to Officer Moise did exist at the time of the initial COC, but were not in their actual possession or control, despite their diligent and good faith efforts to obtain these items. Additionally, the People noted that their requests for the radio run and sprint report were still outstanding.

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 May 15, 2026 (see CPL 245.50[4][c]). Here, the defendant filed the instant motion 38 days after service of the initial COC. Notably, 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]). However, the court finds that the circumstances in this case do not present a material change in circumstances warranting the defendant's delay in the filing of the motion. Importantly, the defendant was aware of the outstanding radio run, ICAD report, and law enforcement disclosures at the time the initial COC was served, as the People indicated their nondisclosure of these materials in the initial COC and ADF. While defense counsel timely conferred with the People about some of the items at issue by email on June 2, 2026, the defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the delay in filing the motion. The defendant did not explain why he waited until June 22, 2026 to file his motion when the People had provided a comprehensive response to each of his inquiries on June 14, 2026. Further, the defendant did not seek an extension of time to file his motion prior to the expiration of the 35-day time frame, as required under CPL 245.50(4)(c)(i). 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 either failed to disclose certain discovery items on time or did not provide them at all. Specifically, he notes that the ICAD report was belatedly disclosed. Further, he asserts that the following materials remain outstanding: radio run; attachments to Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) logs for Detective Porter and Officer Moise; Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) recommendations for Officers Moise and Smiley; roll call logs; interrupted patrol logs; facial recognition search materials for a "no match" result; and materials related to a prior arrest of the defendant.

1. Radio Run and ICAD Report

The defendant states that the People have not yet disclosed the radio run and did not list it as outstanding in their COC (see Defendant's Motion at p.6). He argues that the failure to disclose this routinely generated item demonstrates that the People did not exercise due diligence and make reasonable efforts to meet their automatic discovery obligations (id.). He further asserts that the People were not diligent in their efforts to obtain the ICAD report because they knew of its existence but did not request it until the same day that they filed their initial COC (see Defendant's Reply at 2-3).

In response, the People contend that their efforts to obtain discovery materials began almost immediately after arraignment and, amongst such efforts, was their request for the radio run from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit on March 20, 2026 (see People's Response at p. 6, 25). They assert that, upon receiving a negative search result for the radio run on June 16, 2026, they placed a new request for the radio run on June 22, 2026 (see People's Response at p. 25). In addition, the People state that they noted the radio run as outstanding in their COCs and promptly responded to defense counsel's email inquiry about it (id.). Regarding the ICAD report, the People acknowledge that, upon realizing no ICAD number appeared in any NYPD materials on May 15, 2026, they reached out to multiple police officers for the report and sought assistance from their Litigation Support Unit (see People's Response at p. 9-10). They note that they received the ICAD report on May 18, 2026 and then disclosed it to the defendant on the following day (see People's Response at p. 10).

Under CPL 245.20, the People are required to disclose 911 calls, radio runs, and any related documentation in connection with the instant case, including ICAD reports (CPL 245.20[1][e],[g]). On March 16, 2026, the case commenced, and, shortly thereafter, the People began their efforts to obtain discovery materials. On March 20, 2026, the People requested the radio run from NYPD, and thereafter, they continued their efforts to secure discovery materials. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People noted their nondisclosure of the radio run in each of their COCs. Additionally, in each of their first two COCs, they indicated that the ICAD report was outstanding. Although they admit that they did not notice the missing ICAD number until May 15, 2026, they immediately took steps to secure the ICAD report upon realizing it was missing without the need for defense counsel to alert them to the issue. They then received the report only three days later and disclosed it to the defendant just one day thereafter. Further, the court notes that the defendant did not address the belated disclosure of the ICAD report in his June 2, 2026 email inquiry nor does he address it in his initial motion papers, despite being informed on May 15, 2026 that the report was outstanding and despite being made aware of the circumstances surrounding its belated disclosure in the May 19, 2026 SCOC. Rather, he improperly raises this issue for the first time in his reply (see Eastmore Owners Corp. v Zelmanovich, 2025 NY Slip Op 50787[U]). Upon consideration of these circumstances, the court finds that the People have been sufficiently diligent in their efforts to obtain the radio run and the ICAD report (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 People complied with CPL 245.50(1) by listing these materials as outstanding in their COCs. 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. However, as the radio run remains outstanding, the People are directed to disclose it within two weeks of this decision: specifically, by October 6, 2026.

2. Law Enforcement Disclosure Materials

In order to meet their automatic discovery obligations, the People are required to disclose all evidence and information related to the subject matter of the case that tends to "impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness" (CPL 245.20[1][k][iv]). Here, the defendant contends that the People failed to disclose three attachments to IAB logs for Detective Porter, seven attachments to an IAB log for Officer Moise, and CCRB recommendations regarding Officers Moise and Smiley (see Defense Motion at p. 7-9). The People, however, argue that the attachments are not discoverable, relying on the Court of Appeals decision in People v Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325 (2025) (see People's Response at 31-35). More specifically, the People contend that the IAB logs summarize the content of the attachments and, further, that the attachments have no impeachment value because they pertain to unsubstantiated or exonerated allegations (see People's Response at 32-34). In addition, the People assert that the CCRB recommendations are not in their actual or constructive possession and can be subpoenaed by defense counsel (see People's Response at 35-38).

The People, as part of their obligations under CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), are required to disclose disciplinary records that tend to impeach their testifying police officer witnesses (see People v Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325; Matter of Jayson C., 200 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Rodriguez, 77 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]). Notably, the Court of Appeals held in People v Fuentes that CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv) "does not require production of a document just because it provides additional information not in other impeachment material" (45 NY3d at 334). Importantly, however, the Court determined that "[t]he question instead is whether the document 'tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness' " (id.). Further, the Court of Appeals has long held that the best judge of the impeachment value of evidence is not the prosecutor but, instead, the "single-minded counsel for the accused" (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]; see People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610, 615 [1992]). Moreover, the automatic discovery statute provides that, "[t]here shall be a presumption in favor of disclosure" (CPL 245.20[7]), and the First Department has held that CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv) "broadly requires disclosure of all impeachment evidence" (Matter of Jayson C., 200 AD3d at 449).

Here, as shown by their Rosario and discovery list, the People timely disclosed a large volume of law enforcement disclosure materials, including materials related to the three testifying officers at issue on this motion. In addition, the People noted their outstanding request for updated disclosure materials in their initial COC and first SCOC, and they shared disclosure materials with both of their SCOCs. Considering the amount of disclosure materials that were timely disclosed, in comparison to the outstanding attachments, and the People's good faith belief that the attachments need not be disclosed under existing case law (see e.g. People v Hespinobarros, 245 AD3d 826 [2d Dept 2026]; People v Bernal, 88 Misc 3d 1268[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50728[U] [Crim Ct, New York County 2026]), the court declines to invalidate the COCs for the People's failure to timely disclose the attachments. However, it is unclear if the People ever examined the attachments directly to determine their impeachment value. Moreover, the defendant may find that the materials possess some level of impeachment value. As the People are deemed to possess NYPD materials (see CPL 245.20[2]), they are directed to disclose the attachments to the defendant within two weeks of the issuance of this decision: specifically, by October 6, 2026.

In contrast, CCRB is not a law enforcement agency, and therefore, the People are not deemed to possess CCRB records (see People v Soto, 80 Misc 3d 473 [Crim Ct, New York County 2023]. Further, the prosecutor is not "required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum material or information which the defendant may thereby obtain" (see CPL 245.20[2]); People v Henderson, 237 AD3d 853 [2d Dept 2025]. However, if CCRB materials are in the People's possession, the People must disclose them. Here, the People indicate that they do not possess the CCRB materials sought by the defendant. If they come to possess such materials, they are directed to promptly disclose them to the defendant.

3. Roll Call Logs, Interrupted Patrol Logs, Facial Recognition Search Materials, and Prior Arrest Materials

Pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(e), the People must disclose police reports and notes of police that are related to the subject matter of the case.

In his motion, the defendant asserts that the People failed to disclose roll call logs and interrupted patrol logs and argue that these materials are discoverable pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(e) (see Defendant's Motion at p. 6-7). In opposition, the People contend that these items are not subject to automatic discovery (see People's Response at p. 26). The court finds that the roll call logs are not subject to automatic discovery. "The roll call log is essentially a timesheet for a particular precinct and the information contained therein is not case specific. It does not, for example, provide any information regarding what arrests the officers participated in nor provide any information specific to the defendant or the defendant's arrest" (People v J.M.W., 83 Misc 3d 1289[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51249[U], *6-7 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2024]; People v Sadhin, 2025 NY Misc LEXIS 6915, *20 [Crim Ct, New York County 2025]). Further, the court finds that the interrupted patrol log is not subject to automatic discovery. "The interrupted patrol log is maintained by a station's desk officer and tracks when, why, and for how long members of service enter the stationhouse while on duty. It is an administrative document not meant to track substantive information related to any case but instead" to track the amount of time spent in a stationhouse by on-duty officers (People v Robinson, 87 Misc 3d 1211[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51537[U], *2 [Crim Ct, New York County 2025]).

Although defense counsel inquired about facial recognition search materials in his June 2, 2026 email inquiry to the People, he does not address such materials in his initial motion papers. Instead, he raises them for the first time in motion practice in his reply papers. He acknowledges that the People disclosed facial recognition materials in connection with a search that produced a "match" result, but states that the People failed to turn over materials related to a search that produced a "no match" result (see Defendant's Reply at p. 1). Upon examination of the parties' motion papers and the court file, it is unclear to the court if the People have already shared the "no match" materials with the defendant. As these are NYPD materials "relevant to the offense charged or to any potential defense thereto," (CPL 245.20[1][e]), the court finds them to be automatically discoverable. Nevertheless, considering the People's disclosure efforts as a whole and the defendant's failure to raise this issue in his motion papers, the court declines to invalidate the People's COCs for any failure to timely turn over these materials. However, the People are directed to disclose these materials within two weeks of the issuance of this decision: specifically, by October 6, 2026. If these materials have already been disclosed, the People are directed to point the defendant to their specific location in the previously shared materials.

In addition, the defendant states that the People's response papers reveal that a police officer involved in this case recognized the defendant from a prior arrest. As such, the defendant asserts that the People are obligated to disclose materials from that prior arrest, specifically, the complaint report, arrest report, and body-worn camera footage. Upon examination of the parties' motion papers and the court file, this court finds that there is no clear indication that these materials are relevant to the instant case. However, under the circumstances presented here and considering the defendant's request for these materials, the court directs the People to disclose these materials within two weeks of the issuance of this decision: specifically, by October 6, 2026.

D. Validity of the Certificates of Compliance

At the time the People filed the initial 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, law enforcement disciplinary records, messages with the complainant and with police officers, facial recognition search result materials, a wanted flyer, and notes by the assigned ADA. 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.

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.   Although the defendant does not explicitly challenge the validity of the People's second SCOC, which was filed on August 2, 2026 during the pendency of the instant motion, his claim that certain materials have not yet been disclosed is construed as a challenge to all COCs.

2.   The defendant raises additional materials as either belatedly disclosed or outstanding for the first time in his reply papers, and therefore, these materials were not addressed by the People in their response. Importantly, it is improper to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief in reply papers (see Eastmore Owners Corp. v Zelmanovich, 85 Misc 3d 143[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50787[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2025]). Nevertheless, the court considers the defendant's challenges regarding these additional materials, and, as discussed herein, the challenges do not alter the court's decision finding the People's COCs valid.

Shirin Zarabi, J.