The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Mark Mills, Defendant. (2026)

The defendant moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and to dismiss the case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). Specifically, the defense alleges that the People failed to produce police disciplinary records and improperly redacted two entity reports. The People oppose, arguing that the materials either do not exist or are not discoverable, and that, regardless of any discovery defects, they exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

I. Relevant Facts

The defendant is charged with violating PL §§ 155.25, 110/120.00, and related offenses on March 6, 2026. The next day, the defendant was arraigned in criminal court on a complaint. The case was adjourned to April 22, 2026, for conversion of the complaint.

On April 22, 2026, the People had not converted the complaint, and the case was again adjourned to June 17, 2026, for conversion.

On June 4, 2026, the People filed and served a superseding information, COC, and COR. On June 11, 2026, the defense emailed the People a list of allegedly outstanding discovery.

On June 17, 2026, the People answered ready for trial. The defense did not answer ready for trial, and the case was adjourned to August 21, 2026, for trial.

Between June 18 and June 30, 2026, the parties continued to confer about potentially outstanding discovery via email.

On July 9, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion. On August 21, 2026, the court set a motion schedule, and in accordance with that schedule, the People filed their opposition on September 14, 2026. The defense has not filed a reply.

II. Validity of the People's COC

The defendant argues that the People's COC is invalid because they failed to timely produce several items of material and information that the defendant claims are discoverable: (1) an updated disclosure notice for Officer Tamer Sergany, (2) an IAB log for Officer Sergany, (3) other unspecified disciplinary records for Officer Sergany and Officer Thomas Compitello, (4) disciplinary records for the police witness or witnesses to whom the defendant allegedly made statements, and (5) unredacted entity reports for the defendant and the complainant.

First, the updated disclosure notice was not discoverable when the People filed their COC because it did not exist at that time. Further, the updated notice did not contain any new information.

Second, the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) spinoff log is not discoverable (see People v Fuentes, 45 NY3d 325, 333-335 [2025] [where People produced complaint and other materials related to lawsuit alleging police misconduct, the IAB log repeating the complaint's allegations was not discoverable]). Spinoff logs are created when an IAB investigation results in a referral to the CCRB. In such cases, an IAB log is created for the initial investigation, and a "spinoff log" is created for the referral. The spinoff log is entirely duplicative of the original log and thus has no tendency to impeach (see Fuentes, 45 NY3d at 335).

Third, the People state that they are not in possession of any additional disciplinary records for Officer Sergany or Officer Compitello, and the defense has not provided any reason to believe otherwise.

Fourth, the People affirm that they do not intend to call any police witnesses to whom the defendant allegedly made statements. Contrary to the defense's assertion, these witnesses are not "mandatory" (defense motion, p. 8). The People may attempt to meet their burden at trial as they see fit, and the court perceives no reason to reject their affirmation that they do not intend to call these witnesses.

Fifth, the Appellate Division, First Department, has held that entity reports are automatically discoverable (People v Haggan, 248 AD3d 660, 660 [1st Dept 2026]), and the People's redactions exceeded the scope permitted under CPL § 245.20 (6) (a). However, the court need not define the precise scope of permissible redactions here, because the redacted information was insignificant to the case and largely duplicative. Further, the People produced properly redacted versions of the entity reports on June 30, 2026, during discovery conferral.

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 made significant and prompt efforts to obtain and produce discovery. The only discoverable material that the People failed to produce was insignificant and largely duplicative, and the People rectified the error promptly upon notice from the defense. The lapse has not had any effect on the defense's ability to prepare for trial.

The People's COC is therefore valid, and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED (CPL 245.50 [5] [a], [6]; see also Bay, 41 NY3d at 212).

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 90 days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]). The parties agree that the People must be charged 89 days from the commencement of the action on March 7, 2026, through the filing of the People's COC and COR on June 4, 2026.

No additional time is chargeable. The People's COC and COR were valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since June 4, 2026.

The defendant's 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.