The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Levi Carpio, Defendant. (2026)

In an omnibus motion, the defendant moves for several forms of relief. First, the defendant moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance and statement of readiness invalid and to dismiss the case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e); suppressing evidence (Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, 645 [1961]; People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965], Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1978]; VTL 1194 [2] [f]); precluding unnoticed statements; granting a voluntariness hearing; directing the People to comply with a request for a bill of particulars; directing supplemental discovery procedures; and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial.

The People oppose.

I. Relevant Facts

The defendant is charged with violating VTL §§ 1192 (2) and (1) on March 15, 2026. That day, the defendant was arrested, and on March 16, 2026, he was arraigned in criminal court. The case was adjourned to May 12, 2026, for conversion of the complaint.

On May 12, 2026, the People had not converted the criminal complaint, and the case was adjourned to June 15, 2026, for conversion.

On May 15, 2026, the People filed a certificate of compliance (COC), supporting deposition, and certificate of readiness for trial (COR).

From June 2, 2026, through June 8, 2026, the parties conferred by email regarding discovery.

On June 15, 2026, the complaint was deemed an information, and the People were ready for trial. The defense requested a motion schedule and a good-cause extension to file a COC challenge. The court granted both requests and adjourned for decision.

The defense filed the instant motion on July 9, 2026. The People then filed their opposition on July 29, 2026, and the defense filed a reply on August 7, 2026.

II. Validity of the People's COC

The defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) invalid and dismissing the case pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1) (b) and CPL § 170.30 (1) (e). The defendant alleges that the People failed to timely provide several categories of material and information that the defendant claims are discoverable: (1) NYPD disciplinary records; (2) CCRB records, (3) a vehicle report, and (4) contact information for two emergency medical technicians (EMTs).¹

First, the People appear to concede that the NYPD disciplinary records at issue are discoverable under CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) (iv), and the court finds that their non-disclosure is a moderate factor in assessing the People's diligence. For Sgt. David Caro, the People failed to produce several IAB logs, though only one of them appears likely to have any bearing on Sgt. Caro's credibility. For PO Mahmdi Jaffrey, the People failed to produce a Disclosure Index (DI), but the information in the DI was included in an already-produced Disclosure Advisory Form (DAF). While these are not major discovery violations, the People's explanation for the lapses and description of their efforts is seriously lacking. The People state that they "put in a request with the LED group at the District Attorney's Office for any missing material" (People's opp, p. 14), but they do not include any details about the LED group's efforts or any explanation for the belated and/or non-disclosures. The LED group is part of the prosecution, so the reasonableness and good faith of their efforts must be part of the court's analysis (see 245.50 [5] ["the court shall look at the totality of the party's efforts"] [emphasis added]). Still, despite the insufficient record with respect to the LED group's records, almost all the discoverable NYPD disciplinary records — including the most significant — were produced before the People filed their COC.

Second, the CCRB materials are not in the People's possession and therefore are not part of the People's initial discovery obligation (People v Haggan, 253 NYS3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]). CCRB is not a law enforcement agency, so their records are not deemed to be in the People's possession under CPL § 245.20 (2) (see People v Soto, 80 Misc 3d 473 [Crim Ct, NY County 2023]).

Next, the vehicle report is discoverable, but its belated production is not a significant factor in the court's analysis. The assigned assistant district attorney did not know that the form existed, and she reasonably relied on the arresting officer's representation that no additional NYPD documents existed. Once the defense informed the People of the missing document, the People promptly remedied the error. Also, the People state that the information in the report is "substantively duplicative of other NYPD paperwork" (People's opp, p. 17), and the defense does not suggest otherwise.

Finally, the EMTs' contact information is not in the People's actual or constructive possession and therefore is not part of the People's initial discovery obligation (People v Haggan, 253 NYS3d 154 [1st Dept 2026]).

Considering "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and weighing all relevant factors (CPL 245.50 [5]), the court finds that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide" discoverable materials (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). The People made significant and prompt efforts to obtain and produce discovery. While this case is not complex, the amount of missing discovery is minimal in relation to the volume of discovery actually produced. The People should have made a fuller record regarding the LED group's efforts to obtain NYPD disciplinary records and explaining why certain documents had not been obtained. However, the documents do not appear to be significant, and there is no reason to believe that the lapse has had or will have any effect on the defense's ability to prepare for trial.

The People's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED (CPL 245.50 [5] [a], [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 212).

III. Remaining Motions

The motion to suppress is GRANTED to the extent that a Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway/VTL 1194 (2) (f) refusal hearing is ORDERED. The parties' allegations create issues of fact that must be resolved at a hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]).

The motion to preclude is DENIED because the defense has not identified any specific statement or identification evidence subject to preclusion. Similarly, the motion for a voluntariness hearing is DENIED because the defense has not identified any unnoticed statements or statements to civilians that would necessitate such a hearing. However, the People are directed to notify the defendant as soon as practicable upon forming an intent to use any such statement or identification evidence, and the defense may renew the motion upon receiving such notification (see CPL 710.40 [2], [4]).

The motion to preclude evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are ORDERED to provide supplemental discovery to the defense as soon as practicable and at least 15 calendar days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [b]).

The motion for a bill of particulars is DENIED. The People filed a bill of particulars as part of their automatic disclosure form. That document and the accusatory instrument contain all the information the defendant has demanded that is authorized to be included in a bill of particulars (CPL 200.95 [5]).

The motion for a supplemental discovery order is GRANTED to the extent that the People are ORDERED to produce the following IAB logs within two weeks of the date of this decision:

Sgt. David Caro  ²

• IAB 26-3741

• IAB 21-1933

• IAB 16-21600

• IAB 15-29144

• IAB 12-4805

Officer Mahmdi Jaffrey

• IAB 20-23545

• IAB 20-5050

• IAB 19-24763

• IAB 18-1064

• IAB 17-26819

• I/A 16-18994

The People have conceded that the IAB logs for Sgt. Caro are discoverable (People's opp, p. 16), and the IAB logs for Officer Jaffrey are substantially similar. The People may request additional time to comply with the court's order upon a showing that they have acted diligently to obtain the materials. Alternatively, production of the materials will be excused if the People provide the court and the defense with an affirmation stating that they do not intend to call the relevant officer as a witness at a pretrial hearing or trial.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: September 29, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The defense argued for the first time in their reply memorandum that the People also failed to produce a 911 call and other NYPD disciplinary records. Because these issues were not properly raised in the initial defense motion even though the information was available to the defense, the court will not consider them.

2.   The defense states that there were eight undisclosed IAB logs, but this appears to be incorrect. In addition to the five logs listed here, the DI for Sgt. Caro lists a civil suit, which has been produced; a CCRB referral, for which the full CCRB report was produced; and a duplicate entry for which no separate IAB log exists.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.