The People of the State of New York, v. K. Jones, Defendant. (2026)

Pending is the defense's fully briefed, counseled omnibus motion.¹ It is resolved as follows. Because the parties are the primary audience, familiarity with the case and its procedural history is assumed.

It is hereby ORDERED that the branch of the motion seeking to invalidate the certificate of compliance (COC), strike the statement of readiness as illusory, and dismiss the accusatory instrument on C.P.L. § 30.30 grounds, see C.P.L. § 170.30(1)(e), is GRANTED. The COC is DEEMED INVALID; the SOR is STRUCK as illusory; and as there is no dispute that over 90 days of chargeable time otherwise elapsed prior to a valid statement of readiness, the accusatory instrument is DISMISSED and the matter SEALED, subject to any application to defer sealing made at the time this decision is handed down, which is entrusted to the discretion of the judge presiding that day. All other branches of the motion are DENIED as academic.

As the defense observes, see Defense's Reply at 13, 20, the People's record of their attempts to comply with their discovery obligations is unsworn. See People's Resp. at 10. While the People's response in the companion case suffered from the same deficiency, the People's diligence there was inferable. Here, it is not. Among other things, the general pattern of outreach reflected in the COC is not spread out over the § 30.30 period, but is instead generally concentrated near the end. The People also failed to list certain missing discovery in their COC—an omission that was almost certainly inadvertent, but which complicates the picture of their diligence by, among other things, shifting onto the defense the burden to identify missing discovery about which the People actually knew.

The People otherwise declared ready while significant discovery was outstanding, and some of it is still allegedly outstanding many months later—all in a prosecution that appears to be more straightforward than the companion case. Mistakes made in a simple case generally "cut[ ] against a finding of due diligence." People v. McMahon, 237 AD3d 746, 751 (2d Dept.), leave denied, 43 NY3d 1057 (2025).

The People's arguments about the apparent insignificance of the missing or belatedly disclosed body-worn camera footage are also based on unsworn factual representations. See People's Resp. at 14-15. While the companion case provided other opportunities to infer the comparatively minor nature of the outstanding material, this case does not offer anything similar.

In this context, an unsworn assertion of a fact outside of the documented record is not enough to establish the People's diligence, especially in a COC challenge where what parties did, and what underlying discovery might show, is not immediately apparent from the papers. See People v. Rodriguez, 77 Misc 3d 23, 25 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2022) (concluding that "the People's unsworn, unaffirmed memorandum of law" could not establish their due diligence). Here, neither the People's outreach nor the description of the alleged insignificance of the outstanding or belatedly disclosed discovery, see C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a), is supported by sworn affirmations or documentary evidence. Because the defense specifically objects to this deficiency in its reply, it will not be disregarded.

By extension, the People have not met their burden of ensuring the record was "properly developed." People v. Martinez-Perez, 87 Misc 3d 130(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 51648(U), at *1 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2025). And, as a partial consequence, they have not met their burden, which they bear, of demonstrating reasonable efforts to comply with their statutory discovery obligations. See People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-13 (2023).

In sum, the C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a) factors, all of which have been considered and assessed holistically (even if not mentioned), weigh against the People here. In a simple case like this one, too much discovery was concededly missing at the time the People declared ready, and the creditable record regarding the People's pre- and post-readiness efforts is minimal.

Accordingly, the COC is deemed invalid and the accompanying statement of readiness is struck as illusory. People v. Wilson, --- AD3d ---, 2026 NY Slip Op. 05443, at *2 (3d Dept. 2026). As the People otherwise appear to have declared ready on the 90th day, there is no colorable argument that the C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b) period had not otherwise run by the time a valid declaration of readiness was filed. As a result, the accusatory instrument must be dismissed. People v. Labate, 42 NY3d 184, 190 (2024); Wilson, 2026 NY Slip Op. 05443, at *2.

As the matter is dismissed, all other relief sought is denied as academic.

Dated: October 13, 2026

Bronx, NY

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.

David L. Goodwin, J.