The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Craig Love, Defendant. (2026)

The defense first moves this court to find the People's certificate of compliance (COC), supplemental COCs (SCOCs), and accompanying certificates of readiness (CORs) invalid and to dismiss this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). The People oppose, arguing that the motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) and that they exercised due diligence, regardless of any lapses.

I. Relevant Facts

On December 17, 2025, the defendant was arrested and charged with violating PL § 120.00 and related offenses. He was arraigned the same day on a criminal complaint, and the case was adjourned to February 4, 2026, for conversion.

On February 4, 2026, the People filed and served a supporting deposition, and the complaint was deemed an information. The People were not ready for trial, and the case was adjourned to March 19, 2026, for trial.

On February 4, 2026, the People began producing discovery, and on February 26, 2026, the People filed and served a COC and COR.

On March 10, 2026, the People produced photographs of the complainant's face that had been taken the day before. The People also filed and served a SCOC.

On March 19, 2026, the People were ready for trial, but the defense was not ready. The case was adjourned to May 12, 2026, for trial.

On April 16, 2026, the People produced medical records, and on April 17, 2026, the People filed and served a second SCOC.

On April 22, 2026, the People produced information related to an expert witness, a surgeon who operated on the complainant. On April 23, 2026, the People filed and served a third SCOC.

On April 29 and 30, 2026, the People produced updated police disciplinary records, an aided report, a 911 call, a radio run, and body-worn camera (BWC) footage of the defendant's arrest. On April 30, 2026, the People filed and served a fourth SCOC.

On May 12, 2026, the People were ready for trial. The defense was not, and the case was adjourned to June 11, 2026, for trial.

On June 1, 2026, the defense emailed the People requesting metadata for the photographs of the complainant and additional expert witness materials pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (f). The People responded via email on June 8, 2026, stating that the metadata was contained in the photograph files and that they believed the complainant's medical records satisfied their obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (f).

On June 11, 2026, the People were not ready for trial because they had lost contact with the complainant. On June 17, 2026, having reestablished contact, the People filed and served a fifth SCOC stating that they had disclosed the complainant's new phone number, and they also filed and served a COR.

On August 10, 2026, the defense emailed the People to notify them that the complainant's new phone number had not been entered into WitCom. The People added the phone number that same day, and they also produced additional police disciplinary records. The People then filed and served a sixth SCOC.

On August 11, 2026, both parties answered ready for trial, but the defense informed the court that they intended to file a motion challenging the People's COC and requested a motion schedule. The court set a motion schedule and adjourned the case to October 14, 2026, for decision.

On September 11, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion. On October 5, 2026, the People filed their opposition. The defense's reply was due on October 12, 2026. No reply has been filed, and the court has not received a request for an extension.

II. The 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]).

A motion challenging a COC must comply with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4). Under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), a COC challenge must be filed "within thirty-five days of the service of the certificate" and must include an affirmation that the defense "timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge."

As to the initial COC and the first five SCOCs, the motion is untimely. The motion was filed on September 11, 2026, which is 197 days after the People's initial COC and 86 days after the People's fifth SCOC. The defense does not claim that service was improper or deny receiving the COC or SCOCs. The defense did not request a good-cause extension and has not shown a material change in circumstances (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i], [ii]). With the exception of the materials that did not yet exist, there is no reason to believe that defense counsel "could not, with due diligence, have known of the specific and particularized matters forming the basis of the challenge prior to the expiration of such period" (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [ii]). In fact, the record contains no indication that defense counsel reviewed the discovery within 35 days of the People's COC.

However, as to the People's sixth SCOC, filed on August 10, 2026, the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (c). The motion was filed 32 days after the People's sixth and final SCOC and is therefore timely (CPL 245.50 [4] [c]). The defense also conferred with the People about the single item they now allege was outstanding when the final SCOC was filed, and the conferral emails amply demonstrate that the defense did not "obtain the missing discovery" and that "no accommodation could be reached" (id.).

Specifically, the defense alleges that the People have failed to produce "all reports prepared by [an] expert [witness] . . . or if no report is prepared, a written statement of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion" (CPL 245.20 [1] [f]). In their opposition, the People do not address this alleged discovery violation, though in their conferral emails they asserted that the complainant's medical records satisfied this obligation. The People have not explained the contents of the expert's anticipated testimony, the contents of the medical records, or whether the expert witness wrote any portion of the medical records. From this record, the court cannot determine whether the medical records constitute a report prepared by the expert, or whether the People expect the witness to testify to any facts or opinions not contained in the medical records. Therefore, the People are ORDERED to produce "a written statement of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion" within two weeks of the date of this order (CPL 245.20 [1] [f]).

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 prior to filing their August 10, 2026, COC (CPL 245.50 [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]). The expert summary is the only piece of discovery that was not produced on or before August 10, 2026. While the court cannot conclude from this record that the medical records contain every fact and opinion to which the expert witness will testify, the summary will likely be substantively duplicative of those records. The volume and significance of the discovery produced far outweigh the single outstanding item as of August 10, 2026. Further, while the People appear to have made some initial lapses in their discovery efforts, they had self-corrected almost all of them before filing the final SCOC.

The motion challenging the People's discovery compliance is therefore DENIED, and the People's COC and all SCOCs are deemed valid.

III. 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]).

From the defendant's arraignment on December 17, 2025, to the People's filing of a COC and COR on February 26, 2026, 71 days are chargeable to the People. Because that COC has been deemed valid, the COR was not illusory. The only post-readiness delay attributable to the People is the six days from June 11, 2026, when the People answered not ready for trial, to June 17, 2026, when they filed a new off-calendar COR. The defense has not established that the June 17 COR was illusory. The People are charged with a total of 77 days, and the motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: October 13, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.

Ilona B. Coleman, J.