The People of the State of New York v. Jesse Roberts, Defendant. (2026)

On February 12, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with one count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law [PL] § 145.00[1]). Thereafter, on March 16, 2026, the People filed a superseding information charging the defendant with the same count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (PL § 145.00[1]) as well as one count each of Menacing in the Second Degree (PL § 120.14[1]), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.01[2]), and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26[1]). By motion filed on June 4, 2026, the defendant now moves for: (1) a finding that the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and supplemental COCs (SCOCs) are invalid;¹ and (2) dismissal of the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds under CPL 30.30. On August 7, 2026, the People filed a response opposing the motion. Although the defendant was afforded the opportunity to file reply papers, he declined to do so.

For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motion to invalidate the COCs is denied and the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 is denied. The court finds that 82 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 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 when 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 were either obtained after diligent efforts to do so, are outstanding despite such diligent efforts, or do not exist.

A. Chronology of Discovery and Motion Practice

On March 16, 2026, the People served the first discovery file on the defense via eDiscovery. That same day, the People filed the superseding information and an automatic discovery form (ADF) with the court and served them by email on defense counsel. On April 22, 2026 and May 5, 2026, the People shared additional discovery materials with the defense via eDiscovery. On May 5, 2026, the People also filed a supplemental ADF, a 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 following items had not been disclosed because the People had not yet obtained them, despite exercising due diligence to do so: the return to owner report; the chain of custody report; finalized activity logs; the 911 call; and the radio run. In the electronic evidence section of the supplemental 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. While the People previously disclosed law enforcement impeachment materials, they noted their pending request for additional Brady/Giglio/Geaslen materials in the "further disclosures" section of the supplemental ADF.

On May 8, 2026, the People received the chain of custody report and some finalized activity logs and filed a SCOC noting that they disclosed these materials to the defense 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. Additionally, the People noted in the SCOC that the return to owner report, a finalized activity log for Police Officer Anthony Licciardo, the 911 call, and the radio run remained outstanding. On May 18, 2026, the People received the 911 call and the radio run and shared them with the defense via eDiscovery on that day. On the following day, May 19, 2026, the People filed a SCOC noting their disclosure of these materials and listing the return to owner report and the finalized activity log for Officer Licciardo as still outstanding. In the SCOC, the People explained that the 911 call and the radio run were not previously in their actual possession or control, despite their diligent and good faith efforts to obtain them.

On May 29, 2026, defense counsel emailed the assigned ADA about various items believed to be outstanding. On June 2, 2026, the assigned ADA acknowledged receipt of defense counsel's email and stated that she would follow up on it. On June 3, 2026, the People received the return to owner report and the finalized activity log for Officer Licciardo. They immediately shared these materials, along with updated law enforcement disclosure materials, with the defense on that day. In addition, on the same day, the People filed a SCOC noting these disclosures. In the SCOC, the People explained that the return to owner report and the finalized activity log were not previously in their actual possession or control, despite their diligent and good faith efforts to obtain them, and that the updated law enforcement disclosure materials did not exist when the initial COC was filed. Also on June 3, 2026, the assigned ADA responded at length to defense counsel's email inquiry. On the following day, June 4, 2026, the defendant filed the instant motion.

B. Timeliness and Good Faith Consultation

At the outset, the court declines to deny the defendant's motion as procedurally barred. 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 5, 2026 (see CPL 245.50[4][c]). Thus, the filing of the motion on June 4, 2026, was timely. Further, prior to filing the defense motion, defense counsel emailed the assigned ADA to inquire about the People's efforts to obtain purportedly outstanding materials, including the following at issue on the instant motion: police officer body-worn camera footage in connection with an earlier incident involving the parties at the same location on same day as the alleged incident; a video of the alleged incident taken by the complainant; photos taken by police officers of the complainant's door that was allegedly damaged; and the return to owner report.² Although the People contend that defense counsel did not allow sufficient time for them to attempt to resolve the issues raised and therefore did not confer in good faith, the court finds that the defense satisfied the requirement that they make good faith efforts to confer with the People about the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for the challenge (see id.). Accordingly, the court addresses the merits of the defense challenge below.

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 following materials were belatedly disclosed: the return to owner report; the chain of custody report; the finalized activity logs; the 911 call; and the radio run. Further, he asserts that the following materials remain outstanding: body-worn camera footage from an earlier incident involving the parties at the same location on same day as the alleged incident; a video of the alleged incident taken by the complainant; and police officer photos of the complainant's door.

1. 911 Call and Radio Run

The defendant states that the People's belated disclosure of the 911 call and radio run demonstrates that the People did not exercise due diligence and make reasonable efforts to meet their automatic discovery obligations (see Defendant's Motion at p. 7). 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 911 call and radio run from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit on February 19, 2026 (see People's Response at p. 4). They contend that these materials were known to them and noted in their COCs and that they were diligent in their efforts to obtain these materials (see People's Response at p. 23). Further, they assert that, upon receiving these materials, they promptly shared them with defense counsel (see People's Response at p. 7).

Under CPL 245.20, the People are required to disclose 911 calls, radio runs, and any related documentation in connection with the instant case (CPL 245.20[1][e],[g]). On February 12, 2026, the case commenced, and, shortly thereafter, the People began their efforts to obtain discovery materials. On February 19, 2026, the People requested the 911 call and radio run from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit, and thereafter, they continued their efforts to secure discovery materials. In both their initial COC on May 5, 2026 and their first SCOC on May 8, 2026, the People indicated that they had not yet received the 911 call and radio run. Upon receiving these materials on May 18, 2026, the People disclosed them to the defense on the same day. They then filed their second SCOC on May 19, 2026 reflecting their disclosure of these items.

The court finds that the People were sufficiently diligent in their efforts to obtain the 911 call and radio run. The People requested these materials soon after commencement of the case and disclosed the materials immediately 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 People complied with CPL 245.50(1) by listing the materials as outstanding in both COCs filed before disclosure of the materials. 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 and radio run without inquiry about the materials from the defense, and defense counsel did not address the belated disclosure of these materials in her conferral email.

2. Return to Owner Report, Chain of Custody Report, and Finalized Activity Logs

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 timely disclose the return to owner report and chain of custody report, which are essential in establishing the chain of custody for any property recovered from the defendant, as well as the finalized activity logs for the police officers involved in the defendant's arrest, which can serve as impeachment material (see Defendant's Motion at p. 7). In addition, the defendant argues that these items are all generated by police and within the People's possession (id.). In response, the People contend that they made numerous outreach efforts for these items both before and after filing their initial COC and state that they noted their nondisclosure of these items in each COC up until disclosure (see People's Response at p. 21, 23).

Here, the court finds that the People were sufficiently diligent in their efforts to obtain these items. The People sought discovery soon after commencement of this case. Upon reviewing the initial NYPD paperwork they received, the assigned ADA reached out to the arresting officer on March 16, 2026 for all outstanding materials, including these items, and then followed up for these items on March 23, 2026. Thereafter, the People's Litigation Support Unit reached out to NYPD for these items on three more occasions. While the chain of custody report and some finalized activity logs were obtained and disclosed on May 8, 2026, the assigned ADA noticed that the return to owner report and one finalized activity log were still missing.Therefore, the assigned ADA made multiple follow up inquiries about these items and, upon receiving the items on June 3, 2026, the People immediately disclosed them to the defense on the same day. As the People were diligent in their efforts to obtain these materials and complied with CPL 245.50(1) by listing these items as outstanding in their COCs, the court declines to invalidate the COCs for the People's belated disclosure of these items.

3. Body-worn Camera Footage, Police Photos, and Video by the Complainant

As part of their automatic discovery obligations, the People are required to disclose electronic recordings and photographs related to the instant case that are in their possession, custody, or control (see CPL 245.20[1][g], [h]).

The defendant contends that the People have failed to disclose body-worn camera footage from an earlier incident involving the parties at the same location on same day as the alleged incident, a video of the alleged incident taken by the complainant, and police officer photos of the complainant's door (see Defendant's Motion at 7-8). He asserts that body-worn camera footage disclosed by the People shows officers stating that they had recently been at the site of alleged incident and argues that body-worn camera footage of that earlier visit likely captures the circumstances leading to the alleged incident (id.). He also states that body-worn camera footage shows police officers taking photos of the alleged damage to the complainant's door as well as the complainant informing officers that he took a video of the alleged incident (id.). He contends that the People's failure to turn over these materials evinces a lack of due diligence (id.).

In response, the People assert that, upon defense counsel inquiring about these items in her conferral email, they immediately reached out to NYPD and the People's internal units about the materials (see People's Response at p. 23-24). They state that, through their inquiries, they determined that there is no body-worn camera footage from an earlier incident and that the complainant no longer possesses a video of the alleged incident (id.). In addition, they contend that they have made repeated efforts to obtain the police officer photos of the complainant's door but have yet to obtain them (id.).

Upon review of the People's efforts detailed in their response papers, the court finds that the People exercised due diligence regarding these three items. The People made multiple inquiries for the body-worn camera footage and learned that there is no footage because no arrest was made at an earlier incident. Further, although they made repeated requests to the complainant for his video of the alleged incident near the start of this case, the complainant never shared it with them and then finally told them that he could not find the video. As to photos of the door, the People acknowledge that any such photos may be outstanding but describe their repeated efforts to obtain them by way of at least four phone calls and three emails. As such, the court declines to invalidate the People's COCs for this possible nondisclosure. However, the court directs the People to ascertain the existence of such photos and, if any exist, to disclose them to the defense within two weeks of the issuance of this decision, specifically, by October 7, 2026.

D. Validity of the Certificate 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, body-worn camera footage and metadata, photos, 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 12, 2026 — March 24, 2026

On February 12, 2026, this action commenced with the filing of a misdemeanor complaint charging the defendant with one count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree under Penal Law § 145.00(1) (see CPL 1.20[17]; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d at 355-356). On that day, the defendant was arraigned on the complaint and released on his own recognizance. The court then adjourned the case to March 24, 2026 for the People to file the necessary supporting deposition. On March 16, 2026, the People filed a superseding information charging the defendant with one count each of Menacing in the Second Degree (PL § 120.14[1]), Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (PL § 145.00[1]), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.01[2]), and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26[1]). 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 40 days.

40 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 40

March 24, 2026 — May 14, 2026

On March 24, 2026, the court arraigned the defendant on the superseding information and adjourned the case to May 14, 2026 for trial and for the People to file a COC. On May 5, 2026, the People filed the initial COC and COR. Thereafter, on May 8, 2026, the People filed a SCOC which included a restatement of their readiness for trial. As previously discussed, these COCs are valid, and the court finds that the statements of readiness are effective. Because the May 5, 2026 COR effectively tolled the speedy trial clock, the People are only charged with the 42 days from March 24, 2026 until May 5, 2026.

42 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 82

May 14, 2026 — July 15, 2026

On May 14, 2026, the People were ready for trial. However, the case was adjourned to July 15, 2026 for trial. On both May 19, 2026 and June 3, 2026, the People filed SCOCs, each of which included a restatement of their readiness for trial. On June 4, 2026, the defendant filed the instant motion. As discussed earlier, the SCOCs are valid, and the court finds that the statements of readiness are effective. Because the in-court statement of readiness on May 14, 2026 effectively tolled the speedy trial clock, the entirety of this adjournment period is excluded. Further, the 41-day period from June 4, 2026 to July 15, 2026 is also excludable for motion practice (see CPL 30.30[4][a]).

0 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 82

July 15, 2026 — September 23, 2026

On July 15, 2026, the court acknowledged the defendant's off-calendar filing of the instant motion, set a motion schedule, and adjourned the case to September 23, 2026 for its decision. Because the defendant's motion was under consideration by the court during this time, this period is excludable (see CPL 30.30[4][a]).

0 DAYS CHARGED TOTAL = 82

Thus, the court finds that there are 82 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.

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

Dated: September 23, 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 SCOCs, his claim that certain materials have not yet been disclosed is construed as a challenge to all COCs.

2.   At the time of defense counsel's May 29, 2026 email, the People had not yet disclosed the return to owner report.

Shirin Zarabi, J.