The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Victor Beceera, Defendant. (2026)

The defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and first supplemental COC (SCOC) invalid and dismissing the case pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1) (b) and CPL § 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, the defense argues that the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations before filing their COC and SCOC in that they failed to disclose surveillance video, a DD5 entry, an I-Card, witness information, the investigating detective's notes, text messages between the complainant and the investigating detective, a radio run, NYPD case paperwork, and certain law enforcement disciplinary records. The People oppose, arguing that some of the allegedly outstanding material is not discoverable, and that regardless of any discovery defects, they exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

The court decides the motion as follows.

I. Relevant Facts & Procedural History

The defendant is charged with violating PL §§ 130.52 and 130.55 for allegedly grabbing the complainant's buttocks on November 6, 2025, on a subway car. After the incident, the perpetrator (alleged to be the defendant) and the complainant both got off the train car, and the complainant took a photograph of the perpetrator before getting on another train. Once she arrived at her destination, the complainant informed a security guard of the incident. The security guard, an off-duty NYPD officer, called for officers to respond. On November 7, 2025, the complainant identified the defendant as the perpetrator from a photographic array in a double-blind identification procedure. On January 15, 2026, NYPD warrant squad officers arrested the defendant.

Later that day, the defendant was arraigned on a criminal complaint, and the case was adjourned to March 12, 2026, for conversion.

On February 23, 2026, the People produced initial discovery to the defense, including NYPD paperwork, arrest photographs, and court paperwork.

On March 12, 2026, the People filed and served a supporting deposition, and the complaint was deemed an information. The defendant was arraigned on the information, and the case was adjourned to April 17, 2026.

On April 10, 2026, the People produced additional discovery, including the ECMS file, body-worn camera footage, disciplinary records for testifying police witnesses, witness statements, and activity logs. The People also filed and served a COC and certificate of readiness for trial (COR). In their COC, the People indicated that they had not produced two chain-of-custody reports, 911 calls, or radio runs because these materials were not in the People's actual possession despite the exercise of due diligence.

On April 15, 2026, the People produced chain-of-custody reports and a radio run,¹ and they filed and served an SCOC.

On April 17, 2026, the People stated ready for trial. The defense was not ready, and the case was adjourned to May 14, 2026, for trial.

On April 24, 2026, the defense sent a conferral email to the People with a list of allegedly outstanding discoverable material. On May 1, 2026, the People replied to the defense's objections and produced additional discovery.

On May 7, 2026, the defense filed an omnibus motion.

From May 14, 2026, through July 29, 2026, the case was adjourned for motion practice and a discovery conference. The People produced additional discovery and filed and served SCOCs on May 29 and June 3, 2026.

On July 29, 2026, the defense informed the court that they would be filing a motion challenging the People's COC, and the court set a motion schedule. On August 21, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion. The People filed their opposition on September 11, 2026, and the defense filed a reply on September 25, 2026.

II. COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 88 Misc 3d 1227[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). If the court finds that any discovery violations occurred, the court will then examine the violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]).

1. Defense Compliance with CPL § 245.50 (4)

The People have not challenged the timeliness of the defense motion, and defense counsel's conferral affirmation is sufficient (CPL 245.50 [4]). The court does not perceive any basis to question defense counsel's good faith (see People v G.Y., 89 Misc 3d 1204[A], *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]), and the parties conferred sufficiently to clarify the points of disagreement (People v Calvin Y., 86 Misc 3d 1270[A], *2 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]). The fact that the People eventually produced nearly all of the allegedly outstanding discovery during the conferral process does not mean that the defense is procedurally barred from challenging the People's COC. The parties' conferral efforts did not "resolve the issue[ ]" of the COC's validity, and the court sees no reason to disagree with defense counsel's conclusion that "no accommodation could be reached" (CPL 245.50 [4]; G.Y., 89 Misc 3d 1204[A] at *3).

2. The People's Compliance with CPL § 245.20

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because they failed to produce three pages of notes taken by the case detective, witness information, text messages between the complainant and the detective, surveillance video, a DD5 entry, an I-Card, a radio run, NYPD case paperwork, and certain law enforcement disciplinary records.

First, the case detective's notes are discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]). The notes are from an interview with the complainant and a separate interview with a responding officer, and they are neither duplicative nor insignificant. However, the People were unaware that the materials existed because, before the People filed their COC, the detective told them that all notes and communications related to the case had been uploaded to the ECMS file. Once the defense inquired about any additional notes, the People repeatedly contacted the detective to ask her to double-check for additional discoverable materials.

Second, the witness information is also discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [d]), and because it was in the detective's notes, it was constructively in the People's possession (CPL 245.20 [2]). However, there is again a reasonable explanation for the lapse. The case detective incorrectly informed the People that the responding officers had not obtained a name or contact information for the security guard. Crediting this assertion, the People did not ask the responding officers but instead made significant efforts to obtain the name and contact information of the security guard from the building where he was working. Believing the information was not in their actual or constructive possession, the People reasonably filed their COC without providing it to the defense (see People v Haggan, 248 AD3d 660, 660, lv denied, 46 NY3d 927 [2026]).

Third, of the text messages between the detective and the complainant, the only discoverable item was a photograph that the People produced before filing their COC. The remaining messages related only to scheduling of a meeting between the two and thus do not constitute "statements related to the subject matter of the case" (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]). The defense does not explain why they believe the messages are discoverable.

Fourth, the surveillance footage is discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [g]). Nevertheless, its belated production is at most a minor issue in assessing the People's diligence. The People made specific efforts to obtain the surveillance footage before filing their COC and reasonably believed that they had obtained the video and shared it with the defense. Upon learning from the defense that the file was corrupted, the People made significant efforts to obtain it from the case detective. Notably, the video did not capture the alleged criminal incident itself but instead captured the parties on the subway platform shortly after the incident. Thus, it is not unreasonable that the prosecutor seemingly did not attempt to open the file before filing a COC and COR.

Fifth, the belatedly produced DD5 entry is discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]). However, its nonproduction was inadvertent, and the document itself is insignificant. When the People shared the ECMS file with the defense, a blank copy of a single DD5 entry was inadvertently included. The missing entry simply documents the fact that the case detective uploaded a signed complaint to the case file and does not contain any substantive information about the case. Once notified of the lapse, the People produced the document within a week.

Sixth, the I-Card is discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]). However, it is also entirely duplicative of the DD5 entry for the I-Card activation, which the defense received before the People filed their COC. The People explain that when a detective activates an I-Card through ECMS, the system generates (1) an I-Card that is published through NYPD's Domain Awareness System (DAS) and (2) a DD5 that contains all the information published in the I-Card. The defense received the DD5 prior to the People's COC and thus had all the information contained in the I-Card. The defense has not claimed otherwise.

Seventh, the radio run is discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e], [g]), and the recording was constructively within the People's possession when they filed their COC (CPL 245.20 [2]). However, the People requested the recording promptly, and the primary fault for the delay lies with NYPD. Upon receiving the radio run just days after filing their COC, the People produced it.

Eighth, the remaining NYPD paperwork warrants little discussion. The activity logs for warrant squad officers involved in the defendant's arrest are discoverable but insignificant. The unmarked copy of the photo array is also discoverable but carries little additional evidentiary value. The chain-of-custody reports for the defendant's personal effects — vouchered for safekeeping, not as evidence — are discoverable but insignificant, especially as the defense already possessed the vouchers. The roll call log and interrupted patrol log are administrative documents that are not "related to the subject matter of the case" and are therefore not automatically discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]; People v Hoard, 90 Misc 3d 1213[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]).

Finally, with one exception, the disciplinary records at issue are not discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [k] [iv]; see also People v Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325 [2025]). The defense argues that the People should have produced "attachments, index[es], and closing report[s]" for several IAB logs that the People timely produced (defense motion, pp. 8-9). However, almost all the IAB logs are for minor matters that are irrelevant to credibility (see People v Burrows, 237 AD3d 1481, 1482 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied, 43 NY3d 1054 [2025]). Further, under Fuentes, documents that "disclose[ ] the source and full content of [misconduct] allegations" are discoverable; documents that merely summarize those allegations are not, at least when the source documents have been produced (45 NY3d at 335). The defense has not provided any reason to believe that indexes or closing reports would carry any impeachment value beyond what is contained in the IAB log.

Having reviewed the IAB logs, the court finds that only one attachment has any likelihood of containing information that "tends to impeach" (CPL 245.20 [1] [k] [iv]). IAB log 20-8802 involves an allegation that then-Police Officer (now Detective) Andrew Olive conducted a search of a person without sufficient cause. One of the attachments, titled "Audio," appears to be a recording of the civilian complainant describing the incident to an IAB investigator. This recording likely contains "the source and full content" of the civilian complainant's allegations against the officer and is therefore discoverable (Fuentes, 45 NY3d at 335).

The fact that the NYPD closed this allegation as "exonerated" does not change the analysis. The line this court and others have previously drawn between "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" allegations on one hand and "unfounded" or "exonerated" allegations, on the other, is no longer tenable after Fuentes, which requires a document-by-document assessment of impeachment value. Here, the allegations, if true, would "tend[ ] to impeach" the testifying officer, and prosecutors must disclose impeaching allegations regardless of whether they "credit[ ] the information" (CPL 245.20 [1] [k]). Moreover, the officers who allegedly conducted the improper search did not activate their body-worn cameras, and the IAB investigator closed the allegation as "exonerated" based only on the officers' own statements that the civilian had a bulge in his pocket that resembled a firearm. The only item the officers recovered from his pocket was a cell phone. Because the IAB determination rested on the officers' word alone, and the statute requires disclosure without regard to whether the prosecution credits the allegation (CPL 245.20 [1] [k]), the IAB determination cannot insulate the attachment from disclosure.

The People are therefore ORDERED to produce the attachment titled "Audio" from IAB log 20-8802 to the defense within two weeks of the date of this order. Alternatively, the People may serve on the defense and file with the court an affirmation that they do not intend to call Detective Andrew Olive as a witness at any pretrial hearing or trial.

Though the court concludes that the audio attachment is discoverable, it was not a major oversight. The People produced a significant quantity of disciplinary records in this case, including many that are arguably not discoverable. Further, most of the information from the audio attachment appears to be included in the IAB log. Also, Detective Olive played a relatively minor role in this case, and his credibility is unlikely to be an issue in a pretrial hearing or at trial.

3. The People's Diligence and Reasonableness

The court now considers the People's minor discovery violations in the context of their overall efforts. Even where the People have not satisfied all their discovery obligations, their COC will not be invalidated where they have "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material" (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 211). In making this determination, the court must consider:

[T]he efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with [their discovery obligations]; the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding; the complexity of the case; whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; whether the omission was corrected; whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and whether the prosecution's delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial.

(CPL 245.50 [5] [a]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 212).

Here, the People made prompt and substantial efforts to comply with their discovery obligations. While the case is not especially complex, the discovery is more voluminous than in an average misdemeanor case due to the detective's investigation and arrest by a warrant squad. While there were several items that were disclosed belatedly, the discovery provided before the People filed and served their COC far outweighed the materials that were erroneously withheld, both in volume and in significance.

Moreover, the lapses were mostly caused by factors unrelated to the People's diligence. Two items were not produced because the case detective specifically and wrongly told the People that they did not exist. Two others were produced in defective form because of technical errors. The radio run was produced belatedly because of an NYPD backlog. The People reasonably believed that the IAB log attachment was not discoverable. Only a few documents were withheld without a reasonable explanation, but these documents — a second version of a photo array, chain-of-custody reports for the defendant's personal property, activity logs, and an I-Card — are all substantively duplicative or insignificant.

The People also acted promptly and diligently in responding to defense counsel's inquiries about outstanding discovery. The only discoverable item that was not produced to the defense before their motion was filed was the IAB log attachment, which the People reasonably believed in good faith was not discoverable. While some of the belatedly produced materials are concededly significant, the defense has not identified any concrete way in which the delay caused prejudice or impeded their ability to prepare for trial.

Overall, 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's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED.

III. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with a class A misdemeanor and no felonies, the People must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]). The parties agree that the People must be charged 85 days from the commencement of the action on January 15, 2026, through the filing of the People's COC and COR on April 10, 2026.

No additional time is chargeable. The People's COC and COR were valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since that date.

The defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: October 6, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While the People's discovery list states that they also produced a 911 call on April 15, 2026, the People now state that they did not produce a 911 call because no 911 call was made in this case.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.