The People of the State of New York, v. S. Morrison, 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 disclosed extensive discovery well in advance of the statutory deadline, and the sworn record of their pre-readiness efforts and disclosures—see People's Resp. at 4-5; People's Resp., Exs. 5-6—shows outreach in line with what would be expected in a case of this level of complexity. The People's response to the voluminous initial defense objection, which had been lodged 20 days after the COC was filed, was itself reasonably prompt and thorough, addressing many of the outstanding discovery issues (such as the missing pages of the gas chromatography report) within the 35-day implied conferral period. See People v. Whitney, 88 Misc 3d 905, 909 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (David, J.) (observing that "a number of the due diligence are satisfied" when outstanding discovery is disclosed during the 35-day conferral window). The People have continued the flow of discovery since and have corrected a few of the additional issues, providing additional foundation for their pre-readiness diligence and, to the extent it has independent legal significance, demonstrating post-readiness diligence as well.

The People otherwise persuasively contend, without significant rejoinder from the defense, that most of the allegedly missing or belatedly disclosed discovery materials either did not exist or were "substantively duplicative" or "insignificant" under the relevant C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a) factor—for instance, the AVL data, the officer notes, the updated activity logs, the ZOLPA,³ the vehicle stop report, the pre-arraignment notification report, and the dash-cam footage. And to the extent any of the allegedly nonexistent material was created and was discoverable, its nondisclosure would not tip the scales in favor of invalidating the COC on these facts.

The same analysis applies to any allegedly outstanding or withheld impeachment materials for the testifying officers. The People assert that some of the material sought by the defense may not exist, and that other documents pertain to incidents of which the defense is already aware, and which otherwise may not be relevant to the officers' credibility.

Under these particular circumstances, the § 245.50(5)(a) factors, all of which have been considered even if not mentioned, weigh in favor of due diligence. The People have thus met their burden of showing reasonable efforts to comply with their statutory discovery obligations, and the defense's arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. The COC is thus DEEMED VALID. And as there is no contention that the § 30.30 time would otherwise have elapsed, the defense's request for dismissal is DENIED.

A Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearing is ORDERED. All Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia/preclusion issues are referred to the trial court. Any other request for relief not specifically mentioned is DENIED.

Dated: August 14, 2026

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 People's initial response inadvertently omitted page 26. On July 28, the People amended their response to include the missing page. The defense did not file a reply.

3.   The defense asserts that "[n]umerous courts" have concluded that the ZOLPA is discoverable. Defense's Mot. at 14-15 (collecting cases). As the People point out, see People's Resp. at 23, that view is not universal. See, e.g., People v. Scott, 88 Misc 3d 1222(A), 2026 NY Slip Op. 50159(U), at *7 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Kings Co. 2026) (Shamahs, J.); People v. Stringer, 88 Misc 3d 1201(A), 2026 NY Slip Op. 50005(U), at *5 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx. Co. 2026) (David, J.). In the absence of binding precedent from a higher court, it is generally better to explain why persuasive precedent that does not favor a position is incorrect or distinguishable, rather than wagering on silence from an adversary.

David L. Goodwin, J.