The People of the State of New York, v. Rohan Cargill, Defendant. (2026)

Defendant Rohan Cargill moves for an order of the court dismissing the accusatory instrument as a result of the People's failure to satisfy their discovery obligations within the applicable CPL 30.30 speedy trial time.

This court finds the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") is valid. There are 59 days charged to the People. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is hereby DENIED.

Background

On March 22, 2026, Defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint, which charged him with one count of Penal Law § 245.00 Lewdness (a class B misdemeanor) and Penal Law § 245.01 Exposure of a Person (a violation).

At Defendant's arraignment, the matter was adjourned to May 13, 2026, for the parties to appear in Part APAR6. On that date, the matter was adjourned to July 2, 2026. The People filed their COC and SOR off-calendar on May 20, 2026. On June 26, 2026, the People filed a Supplemental COC ("SCOC") disclosing several items of discovery that they allege were previously omitted "due to inadvertent technical errors," as well as two additional Giglio letters. Defendant filed the instant motion on July 1, 2026.

Discussion

To declare readiness for trial, the People must file a valid COC (People v Jackson, 246 AD3d 761, 762 [2d Dept 2026], citing CPL 245.50[3]). Defendant's motion seeks dismissal of the instant matter pursuant to CPL 30.30 on the grounds that the People failed to comply with their discovery obligations, rendering their COC improper and SOR illusory.

CPL 245.20(1) provides that the People must disclose "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control." This subsection of the statute provides a non-exhaustive list of twenty-one categories that are included in the types of material required to be disclosed. "The People's 'possession' includes discoverable material that is in the possession of the police" (People v Cartagena, 76 Misc 3d 1214[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50943[U], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2022], citing CPL 245.20[2]).

CPL 245.10(1)(a)(ii) states that "[w]hen the defendant is not in custody during the pendency of the criminal case, the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations within thirty-five calendar days after the defendant's arraignment on an indictment, superior court information, prosecutor's information, information, simplified information, misdemeanor complaint or felony complaint." In the event that certain discoverable materials are "exceptionally voluminous or, despite diligent good faith efforts, are otherwise not in the actual possession of the prosecution," the People are permitted up to a total of 65 calendar days to comply with their discovery obligations (CPL 245.10[a]). The People filed and served their original COC on May 20, 2026, which was 59 days after the commencement of this matter.

CPL 245.50(1) requires the People to file a COC that certifies, in good faith, that " 'after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery' " (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 209 [2023], citing CPL 245.50[1]). "[A] valid certificate of compliance and readiness declaration will not be rendered illusory by subsequent diligent disclosures made in good faith" (People v Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2024], citing People v McCarty, 221 AD3d 1360, 1362 [2023]; CPL 245.50[1]; CPL 245.60).

Pursuant to the recently amended discovery laws, the court must look at the "totality of a party's efforts to comply" with their discovery obligations, "rather than assess the party's efforts item by item" (CPL 245.50[5]). The legislature has established the following factors relevant to assessing the People's due diligence:

(i) the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article; (ii) the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding; (iii) the complexity of the case; (iv) whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; (v) the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; (vi) the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; (vii) whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; (viii) whether the omission was corrected; (ix) whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and (x) 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 (id.).

Defendant's motion argues that the People's COC is invalid due to the failure of the People to disclose: (i) the radio run recording and 911 paperwork; (ii) body worn camera ("BWC") footage of Defendant's arrest and Defendant's time at the precinct; (iii) property vouchers; (iv) activity logs for seven NYPD officers; (v) various arrest paperwork (Desk Appearance Investigation Sheet, Medical Treatment of Prisoner Form, Miranda Form, WINQ, and ICAD); (vi) Giglio materials for all testifying officers; and (vii) the video player application for sixteen MTA video surveillance files. In reviewing the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations, this court finds that an analysis of the factors set forth in CPL 245.50 ultimately weighs against invalidation of the People's COC.

The People state that they did not originally disclose items (i) through (iv) due to "technological problems that prevented the electronic delivery of some of these materials to defense counsel" (People's Memorandum of Law ["MOL"] at 8). The court notes that the Inventory of Discovery filed with the People's original COC did, indeed, include each of these items as having been turned over with the original discovery production. Defense counsel reached out to the People to confer regarding the missing discovery on June 17, 2026 (Affirmation of Ligner Vazquez, Esq. ["Vazquez Aff"], ¶ 9). The assigned prosecutor, Law Graduate Michael Evers, responded to defense counsel on June 22, 2026, and uploaded the inadvertently missing discovery that day ([Affirmation of Michael Evers ["Evers Aff"], ¶¶ 21—23; People's SCOC).¹

This court finds no lack of due diligence on the People's behalf as to items (i) through (iv). It is evident that the People intended to timely disclose the materials, as demonstrated by the Inventory of Discovery accompanying the original COC. Although there was some initial delay in addressing this issue, the delay is attributed to both sides, each of whom were out of the office during this time (Vazquez Aff at ¶ 8; Evers Aff at ¶ 19). Upon each of their return, the People promptly corrected their erroneous omission and without court intervention (Evers Aff at ¶¶ 20—25). Further, Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice as a result of the delayed production. Thus, the factors set forth in CPL 245.50 for assessing due diligence weigh in favor of the People with regard to the belatedly disclosed discovery.

With regard to item (v), the missing arrest paperwork (Desk Appearance Investigation Sheet, Medical Treatment of Prisoner Form, Miranda Form, WINQ, and ICAD), the People assert that they have no information as to the existence of those documents despite having sought them from the NYPD on multiple occasions (People's MOL at 11). They state they are still awaiting a response (id.) While these are routinely disclosed items, Defendant has not specified any prejudice as a result of the People's inability to timely produce these materials.

As to item (vi), Giglio for the testifying NYPD officers, the People's Notice/Disclosure Form indicated that the two testifying officers are Officer Jones and Officer Garguilo. The People's Inventory of Discovery included Giglio letters for both of these officers. This court notes separately, however, that the People's original COC also indicated that the People were still awaiting updated Giglio for these officers. The People's SCOC indicates that they turned over the newly received Giglio on June 26, 2026.

The video player application for the sixteen MTA video surveillance files (item [vii]) requires a separate analysis, as the application has not been provided to Defendant to date. Defendant states that the People disclosed sixteen surveillance videos from the MTA (Defendant's MOL at 3). However, these videos were ".N3R" files that require a special video player application, to which defense counsel does not have access (id.). The People state that on June 29, 2026, they "disclosed the name of the application and shared a screenshot of the application icon" (Evers Affirmation, ¶ 27). They assert that the "link/file for the application could not be attached via email" (id. at ¶ 29). The People argue that they satisfied their discovery obligations by providing the video files themselves and that they were not required to provide the video player application (People's MOL at 14).

This court agrees that the People are not required to provide computer programs that may be used to view otherwise discoverable evidence. While these programs may be relevant in a broad sense, good policy dictates that they should not be covered by CPL 245.20.² If this court were to hold that such programs are part of the People's duty under this statute, defense could argue that the People must provide all such programs necessary to view all evidence the People provide in every case. This in and of itself seems an unnecessary escalation in the People's discovery responsibilities. Additionally, such production may also violate licensing agreements between the People and the program's designer, as may be the case here.³

Although this court declines to invalidate the People's COC on this basis, this court also finds that the People should make additional efforts to provide the videos in a form usable by defense. This court directs the People to consult their IT department to find a program that can safely convert the files into something usable. The People shall complete this effort within two weeks and provide the files to Defendant within that time. If the People are unsuccessful, the People should serve Defendant and file affirmations detailing their efforts.

C. CPL 30.30 Calculation and Dismissal of the Action

CPL 30.30(1)(c) provides that, when a defendant is charged with one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of not more than three months and none of which is a crime punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months, the action must be dismissed if the prosecution is not ready for trial within sixty days of its commencement.

There are 59 total days charged to the People:

The People commenced the instant action by the filing of the accusatory instrument on March 22, 2026. Defendant was arraigned on that date, and the parties next appeared on May 13, 2026, in Part DWI. 52 days charged.

On the next date, the People were not ready, and the matter was adjourned to July 2, 2026, for discovery compliance. The People filed and served their COC and SOR on May 20, 2026. 7 days charged.

59 total days charged.

The People have not exceeded the 60 days permitted by CPL 30.30 to declare readiness for trial.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied. Furthermore, the People shall consult their IT department to find a program that can safely convert the files into something usable. The People shall complete this effort within two weeks and provide the files to Defendant within that time. If the People are unsuccessful, the People should serve Defendant and file affirmations detailing their efforts.

Dated: September 11, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

SO ORDERED:

Hon. Devin R. Robinson

Judge, Criminal Court of the City of

New York, Kings County

FOOTNOTES

1.   The People argue that Defendant did not confer in good faith prior to making the motion. Defendant's and the People's conferral is described fully in the affirmations of their counsel.

2.   At best, such programs could be discoverable under the catchall 245.20(1)(v), which renders "[a]ny other material and information relevant to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in the instant case or a defense thereto" discoverable.

3.   This court is not familiar with the ".N3R" file designation, and information about the files on the internet is limited. However, the files appear to be playable in that form only using proprietary software from Panasonic.

Devin R. Robinson, J.