The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Jalen Garel, Defendant. (2026)

In an omnibus motion, the defense moves for an order: finding the People's certificate of compliance (COC) invalid pursuant to CPL § 245.50 and dismissing the case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 and 170.30 (1) (e); or, if dismissal is not granted, compelling production of outstanding discoverable materials; granting sanctions for discovery violations; precluding statement and identification evidence on the basis of insufficient and untimely notice; and suppressing statement and identification evidence if preclusion is not granted.

The motion is decided as follows.

I. COC and CPL § 30.30

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because they did not produce 911 calls, radio runs, contact information for two non-police witnesses, disciplinary records for one police officer, and the complainant's medical records prior to filing their COC. The People oppose, arguing that the motion is untimely under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) and that they exercised due diligence in satisfying their discovery obligations.

The People are correct that the motion is untimely (CPL 245.50 [4] [c]). Here, the motion was filed on August 11, 2026, 64 days after the People filed their June 8, 2026, COC. This is well outside the statute's 35-day limit, and the defense did not request a good-cause extension (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i]). Nor has the defense made a showing of a material change in circumstances (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [ii]; see also People v Minor, 88 Misc 3d 1227[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). The COC challenge is statutorily barred and is therefore DENIED.

Because the COC challenge has been denied, the court finds that the People's June 8, 2026, certificate of readiness (COR) for trial was valid. The People are charged with 90 days of speedy trial time, from March 10, 2026, through June 8, 2026. The defense has not raised any other basis for finding any subsequent time chargeable. As the total chargeable time does not exceed the 90 days within which the People were required to answer ready for trial in this case, the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 and 170.30 (1) (e) is DENIED.

II. Additional Discovery Motions

Next, the defense moves to compel production of the materials that were not produced prior to the People's COC. The People have subsequently produced the 911 call, radio runs, and disciplinary records, and the defense has not raised any further objection to the sufficiency of the materials produced. As such, with respect to those materials, the motion to compel is moot. As to the witness contact information and the complainant's medical records, the court cannot compel the People to produce materials that they do not possess. With respect to those materials, the motion to compel is denied, but the People are reminded of their obligations under CPL § 245.20 (2) ("The prosecutor shall make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under [CPL 245.20 (1)] and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control.").

The defense also moves for sanctions pursuant to CPL § 245.80 for the People's alleged discovery violations. However, the statute only authorizes courts to impose sanctions that are "proportionate to the prejudice suffered by the party entitled to disclosure" (CPL 245.80 [1] [a]). Here, the defense has not articulated how the delayed discovery production has prejudiced them, and they are therefore entitled only to "reasonable time to prepare and respond to the new material" (id.). The defense will receive at least one additional pretrial adjournment following the issuance of this decision, and the defense is free to request such additional time as is necessary to prepare for trial. With respect to the complainant's medical records, which have not been produced, the defense may renew its application for sanctions before the trial court if they are subsequently prejudiced by the belated disclosure, or continued nondisclosure, of the records.

III. Motions to Preclude and Suppress Evidence

First, the motion to preclude the People from introducing statement and identification evidence on the basis of untimely notice is DENIED. The People provided notice of their intent to use such evidence on June 8, 2026, prior to the defendant's June 17, 2026, arraignment on a newly converted information. The statutory deadline for serving CPL § 710.30 notice ran from the defendant's arraignment on the information, not from his initial arraignment on the criminal complaint (see People v Littlejohn, 184 AD2d 790, 790-791 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]).

Second, the motion to preclude the People from introducing statement and identification evidence on the basis of insufficient or inaccurate notice is referred to the trial court.

Finally, the motion to suppress is GRANTED to the extent that a pretrial Huntley/Wade hearing is ordered.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: September 28, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.