The People of the State of New York, v. T. Freehill, Defendant. (2026)

Pending before the Court is the defense's  ¹ fully briefed,² counseled omnibus motion. It is resolved as follows. As the parties are the primary audience, the reader's familiarity is assumed.

For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that the branch seeking to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and dismiss on § 30.30 grounds is DENIED, as the People have met their burden of showing reasonable efforts to comply with their statutory discovery obligations, as assessed under all relevant C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a) factors. See People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-12 (2023). Huntley/Wade/Mapp/Dunaway hearings are ORDERED, and a § 1194/refusal hearing is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia/preclusion issues are reserved for the trial court. Any request for relief not specifically mentioned is DENIED.

Regarding dismissal: the defense is correct, see Defense's Reply at 3-4, that the People failed to establish a record of their discovery-related outreach. The People's sworn response affirmation says nothing about pre-readiness efforts to compile their discovery package.

This is a significant omission. The "key" issue for discovery compliance is whether there were "reasonable efforts" to comply with statutory discovery obligations. Bay, 41 NY2d at 211-12. As the People bear the burden of showing compliance, they must ensure that the record is "properly developed." People v. Martinez-Perez, 87 Misc 3d 130(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 51648(U), at *1 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2025). If it is not, a material discovery omission may cause an outsized risk of dismissal. See, e.g., People v. Adams, 88 Misc 3d 131(A), 2026 NY Slip Op. 50233(U), at *2 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2026) (concluding that the People did not meet their burden when, among other things, they "provide[d] no information as to what they initially requested of the police department or when they requested it"); People v. Zeigler, 88 Misc 3d 131(A), 2026 NY Slip Op. 50232(U), at *2 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2026) (concluding that the People did not meet their burden when, among other things, they "made only vague assertions regarding their efforts to obtain the required items").

Here, however, the disputed items were not so material as to require invalidation and dismissal. The belatedly disclosed items were scene photographs, which were provided narrowly within the implied 35-day conferral period, while the omitted items consisted of (1) six other photos taken at the scene, (2) IAB log attachments, (3) name and shield number of a servicemember visible in one of the body-worn camera videos, and (4) authorization to tow paperwork. Defense's Mot. at 16. Even assuming that all of these were automatically discoverable and actually existed—and there may be questions about some of them  ³ —they are outweighed by the comprehensive discovery package that consisted of, among other things, 911 materials, activity logs for six officers, IDTU footage and documents, impeachment material for three officers, and body-worn camera footage for five officers. See Defense's Mot., Ex. A at 1-3.⁴ The People were also generally responsive during the conferral period, and "a number of the due diligence are satisfied" when outstanding discovery is disclosed during the 35-day implied conferral window. People v. Whitney, 88 Misc 3d 905, 909 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (David, J.). Reasonable efforts to comply with discovery obligations can be fairly inferred from this record even without chapter and verse by the People.

The defense counters that a valid COC requires due diligence and reasonable inquiries before certification, not after. Defense's Reply at 2. But that may have changed with the August 2025 revisions to Article 245, which together suggest a legislative intent to permit some consideration of post-readiness diligence. Regardless, even assuming the standard has not changed, the omissions are outweighed by the pre-readiness discovery provided by the People within the relevant statutory timeframes.

The other § 245.50(5)(a) factors, all of which have been considered, do not weigh in favor of invalidation on this record. Thus, the branch of the motion that seeks invalidation of the certificate of compliance is denied.

In arguing that dismissal is still required under § 30.30 regardless of the certificate's validity, the defense asserts that the People should be charged with additional time due to (1) their request for an extension of time to respond and (2) their (eventual) late filing two days beyond the extended deadline. See People's Reply at 6-8.

As to the first issue, a timely extension request generally does not yield chargeable time, at least absent a showing of excessive or unreasonable delay. See People ex rel. Nieves v. Maginley-Liddie, 223 AD3d 859, 860 (2d Dept. 2024) ("Where the People seek and receive an extension of time to respond to a motion made by the defendant, they are not chargeable with that period of time . . . ."). Because the request here was made one day before the People's response was due, and a week's extra time is well within reason, the delay would not be chargeable under § 30.30 on these facts.

The second issue has merit. An extended deadline is still a deadline, and "court-ordered time frames" are "requirements" that must be "taken seriously by the parties." Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726, (2004). Thus, a missed deadline in a criminal case can yield chargeable time. See, e.g., People v. Delosanto, 307 AD2d 298, 299 (2d Dept. 2003) (charging the People with delay in responding to a motion); People v. Hock, 40 Misc 3d 141(A), 2013 NY Slip Op. 51505(U), at *2 (App. Term, 2d, 11th, & 13th Jud. Dists. 2013) (charging People with delay due to late submission of response papers, but not with delay from the consented-to extension); see also People v. Lora, 177 AD3d 518, 521 (1st Dept. 2019) (observing that the remedies for a missed deadline include "charging the People" for the length of the delay).

Here, the People submitted their response on August 16, two days beyond the extended deadline of August 7. But since the People declared ready on the 88th day, see Defense's Mot. at 24, two more days would not exceed the § 30.30 deadline, see C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b), and thus would not yield dismissal.

Regarding hearings, the defense's request for § 1194/refusal hearings was raised for the first time in reply. It is denied without prejudice because the People were not given an opportunity to respond. Whether to permit additional motions, or to entertain the late request for a hearing, will be entrusted to the discretion of the judge who presides on the decision date.

Dated: September 10, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   The version of this decision submitted for electronic publication has been lightly redacted to remove certain identifying information.

2.   The reply was filed by an attorney who was retained after the initial motion was filed. The seamless transition between attorneys is greatly appreciated.

3.   The People provide some (unsworn) information about their post-readiness efforts to obtain the scene photographs and to confirm that the authorization to tow paperwork does not exist. The People also maintain that the remaining photographs sought by the defendant do not exist, despite what may be shown on the body-worn camera footage. See People's Resp. at 11—14.

4.   The activity log/footage disparity is due to one officer accidentally being included in the former category despite not "hav[ing] anything to do with this case." Defense's Mot., Ex. B at 2 (pdf pag.).

David L. Goodwin, J.