The People of the State of New York, v. B. Campusano, 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.

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). In particular, the People's sworn record of their outreach—not very detailed, but also not disputed by the defense—evinces reasonable pre-readiness efforts to assemble a comprehensive discovery package in this relatively straightforward case. See People's Resp. Aff. ¶¶ 5, 7, 9-10; see also Defense's Mot., Ex. A at 1-2.

The omissions identified, meanwhile, pertain generally to documents that, setting aside discoverability, would be of limited salience and/or (per the People) may not have been generated in this case.³

There are two notable exceptions.

The first is—or, rather, could be—the impeachment material. For instance, as the defense points out, IAB log attachments can potentially be discoverable if, among other things, they contain material that would call into question the credibility of a witness. See People v. Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325, 333-35 (2025); People v. Alexander, 247 AD3d 774, 775 (2d Dept.), leave denied, 45 NY3d 1014 (2026).

A full assessment is stymied, however, by the fact that the only real detail provided about this dispute is the officer's name. The defense says that the attachments pertain to "files that list substantiated or unsubstantiated misconduct allegations," Defense's Mot. at 16, and the People do not offer anything in opposition beyond that the relevant material is "not discoverable," People's Resp. at 10. Nothing else is offered about the officer's role, the underlying allegations of misconduct, or the relevance of the withheld material in the context of impeachment records already provided. Without more, it is difficult to conclude that any alleged omission here would outweigh the other § 245.50(5)(a) factors, especially on this record.

The more troubling issue pertains to the cross-complainant's case, which was dismissed and sealed one day before the People declared ready here. See People's Resp. Aff. ¶ 8. Yet at the time they declared ready, the People had not obtained or disclosed discovery associated with the cross-complainant. Instead, the People's outreach commenced only after they were put on notice by the defense during post-readiness conferral. See Defense's Mot., Ex. D at 2. The People then received the bulk of the missing discovery on July 14, only four days after the 35-day implied conferral period ended, yet they did not share it with the defense until about two weeks later—and other documents are still missing. See People's Resp. Aff. ¶ 17.

There appears to be no dispute that materials pertaining to the prosecution of a cross-complainant are generally discoverable as relating to both the case and the charges. See, e.g., People v. Hall, 87 Misc 3d 1203(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 51446(U), at *4-5 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., NY Co. 2025) (Lozano, J.) (addressing discoverability of complainant's arrest material); People v. Dunmeyer, 81 Misc 3d 1213(A), 2023 NY Slip Op. 51334(U), at *1-3 (Sup. Ct., NY Co. 2023) (Farber, J.) (invaliding COC when, among other things, the People did not provide any discovery pertaining to the prosecution of the cross-complainant). And while the People's discovery efforts with regard to the defendant's own case were sufficient, the implication is that the People made no similar efforts to secure and obtain discovery related to the cross-complainant's prosecution. Were the missing discovery noteworthy or otherwise salient, this omission could, standing alone, undermine the People's otherwise-adequate showing of due diligence.

Here, though, the alleged omissions do not appear to have been marquee items—with the possible exception of body-worn camera footage (which, per the People, does not exist), 911 records (which have since been provided, and about which the defense's silence is noteworthy), and EMS records (which probably are not relevant to the COC's validity, see People v. Haggan, 248 AD3d 660, 660 (1st Dept. 2026)). Thus, despite what appears to be a lack of outreach prior to declaring ready, a stroke of luck means the People have nevertheless met their burden of demonstrating reasonable diligence overall.

The other § 245.50(5)(a) factors, all of which have been considered, do not weigh in favor of invalidating the COC.

One more issue bears mention. The defense asks (almost offhand, near the end of the relevant part of the argument section) for the People to be charged with the delay between the filing of their COC on June 5 and the actual transmission of most of the discovery three days later on June 8. This request is presented as a challenge to COC's validity, and the remedy proposed by the defense seems to concede that any defect was temporary and was cured by June 8. See Defense's Mot. at 25-26. The People do not appear to have responded to this argument.

Assessed as framed,⁴ the defense's request to charge additional time is denied. Since fewer than 90 days would have elapsed even with that adjustment, there is no need to informally tally "charged" time absent a potentially meritorious § 30.30 claim.

For the reasons set forth above, the branch of the defense's motion that seeks to invalidate the COC is DENIED. As there is no clear argument that over 90 days elapsed if the COC were to survive a challenge, the branch of the motion seeking dismissal is also DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to renewal, or to the commencement of a new challenge, should the "nonexistent" material from the cross-complainant's case prove to be anything but.

Huntley/Wade/Dunaway hearings are ORDERED. Any Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia/preclusion issues are reserved for the trial court. Any request for relief not specifically mentioned is DENIED.

Dated: September 1, 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 defense did not file a reply.

3.   The People's response walks back prior assurances that certain documents were not generated. Compare Defense's Mot., Ex. D at 1 (interrupted patrol log "was not generated"), with People's Resp. at 10 ("awaiting response from arresting officer, possibly not generated").

4.   Other framings that this alleged defect might have supported—for instance, one focused on the validity of the statement of readiness—were not raised, and need not be addressed. See Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7, 9-10 (2025) (per curiam) (discussing party presentation principle); Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 519 (2009) (same).

David L. Goodwin, J.