The People of the State of New York v. RUBEN WISDOM (2026)

Defendant Wisdom Ruben a/k/a Ruben Wisdom moves for dismissal, contending that omissions in the People's discovery renders their certificate of compliance ("COC") invalid and statement of readiness ("SOR") illusory. She argues that the People have therefore violated her statutory right to a speedy trial. In the alternative, the defendant requests various relief in an omnibus motion. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the other requests are moot.

BACKGROUND

On May 6, 2026, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging her with Assault in the Third Degree and other related charges. On June 1, 2026, the People filed their COC and SOR. Within days, defense counsel began conferring with the assigned ADA regarding numerous alleged deficiencies with the discovery.

On June 29, Hon. Scott M. Krompinger granted the defendant a good cause extension to file a COC challenge, and the People again declared ready in open court. Judge Krompinger adjourned the case to August 10 for a discovery conference. The parties continue to confer, and the People disclosed most of the outstanding discovery by July 9. However, the People never filed a supplemental COC or SOR. On August 10, this Court set a schedule for the defendant's motion to dismiss.

APPLICABLE LAW

New York's revised discovery laws, effective August 7, 2025, require the People to disclose all material relevant to the subject matter of the case (CPL 245.20). CPL § 245.20(2) provides that any items in the "possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution." The People must act in good faith and with due diligence in meeting these requirements. A COC filed contingent to these two benchmarks will not be invalidated because the People were unable to effectuate disclosure despite their best efforts (see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 [2023] ("There is no rule of 'strict liability'; that is, the statute does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecutor.' On the other hand, the plain terms of the statute make clear that while good faith is required, it is not sufficient standing alone and cannot cure a lack of diligence.").

In evaluating due diligence, the court must assess the totality of the People's efforts (see Bay, 41 NY3d at 211-12). In doing so, the court must consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article; 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]). No single factor is determinative as to the People's due diligence.

If the People have not exercised due diligence and the COC was invalid, the speedy trial clock does not stop upon the filing of the SOR and the People will be charged under CPL 30.30 with any days that elapsed unless there is another basis to find that the speedy trial clock was stopped (see People v England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994] ("A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock.")).

Before seeking the court's intervention regarding discovery, the parties are required to diligently confer. Any motion challenging a COC must include an affirmation of good-faith efforts to resolve the outstanding issues. (CPL 245.50[4][c].)

In addition, it is well-settled that being ready for trial "encompasses two necessary elements. First, there must be a communication of readiness by the People which appears on the trial court's record. This requires either a statement of readiness by the prosecutor in open court, transcribed by a stenographer, or recorded by the clerk or a written notice of readiness sent by the prosecutor to both defense counsel and the appropriate court clerk, to be placed in the original record." (People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985].) Second, the People must make the statement of readiness when "the People are in fact ready to proceed. The statute contemplates an indication of present readiness, not a prediction or expectation of future readiness." (Id.) "A statement of readiness is presumed valid, and a defendant who challenges such a statement must demonstrate that it is illusory by showing that the People were not actually ready at the time they filed it" (People v. Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 407 [2016]).

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that the People's COC was invalid and SOR illusory.

I. Items Not Required for Initial Disclosure

As an initial matter, roll call logs do not relate to the subject matter of the case and are generally not discoverable (see, e.g., People v J.M.W., 83 Misc 3d 1289(A) [Sup Ct Kings County 2024] ("The roll call log is essentially a timesheet for a particular precinct and the information contained therein is not case specific. It does not, for example, provide any information regarding what arrests the officers participated in nor provide any information specific to the defendant or the defendant's arrest.")). In any event, People produced the log once requested.

The People were not required to obtain medical and FDNY/EMS records as part of their initial discovery as "they were in the possession and control of third parties not under the prosecution's direction or control" (People v Haggan, 248 AD3d 660, 660 [1st Dept 2026] (holding that "the People were not required, as part of their initial discovery obligation under the automatic discovery rules at CPL 245.20 (1) to obtain and disclose employment and medical records that were not 'in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control' because these records fall under CPL 245.20 (2), as they were in the possession and control of third parties not under the prosecution's direction or control"); see also People v. C.J., 88 Misc 3d 1271(A) [Crim Ct New York County 2026] ("Because the medical records undisputedly were not in the People's actual or constructive possession, their nondisclosure does not affect the COC's validity")). Thus, the non-disclosure or delayed disclosure of these documents does not affect the validity of the COC.

The Court does not fault the People for the delay in obtaining certain photographs as the ADA made multiple attempts to get them from the NYPD.

II. The People's Lack of Due Diligence and Illusory SOR

For the reasons set forth below, there are two fundamental failures that render the COC invalid and the SOR illusory.

The ADA requested 911 calls and related documents on May 22, 2026, and later requested expedited production from the NYPD. These documents were received and produced on July 8. Normally, delays attributable to NYPD's 911 unit do not weigh against the People if the requests are made sufficiently in advance of filing the COC because of the significant backlog with the NYPD's 911 records department. But here, the People declared readiness shortly after requesting the calls while substantial time remained on the speedy trial clock, and they could have waited for the materials or asked to expedite them before declaring ready.

More significantly, the People did not request impeachment materials for the NYPD officers until the day they filed their COC. They also failed to comply with CPL § 245.20(1)(c), which requires the prosecutor to provide "[t]he names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including a designation by the prosecutor as to which of those persons may be called as witnesses." The People also do not appear to have reviewed or produced criminal history or impeachment material for these civilian testifying witnesses (although it is unclear to the Court if any exists). Although the contact information was provided on June 29, the People still did not designate who would testify and had not produced the officers' impeachment materials or received the 911 calls when they declared ready in open court.

Accordingly, the People's SOR filed on June 1 was illusory. The People were not actually ready for trial without impeachment materials for the two officers (which they had just requested that day), the 911 calls, and without designating the testifying civilian witnesses and providing their contact information. Although it appears the ADA was attempting to earnestly move this case forward as quickly as possible, the June 1 SOR had no valid purpose besides stopping the speedy trial clock. The People may have expected to be ready for trial soon, but they were not actually ready on June 1, especially without any impeachment information. The People were also not ready for trial on June 29 when they declared ready in open court because they had still not designated testifying witnesses or received the 911 calls or any impeachment material for the testifying officers.

In addition, the COC filed on June 1 was not valid because the People did not exercise due diligence or make reasonable inquires and efforts to provide the discovery required. Although the amount of missing discovery was relatively minimal and it was produced without court intervention, the ADA knew that essential discovery was outstanding on June 1. The People could have taken numerous steps to get the outstanding materials before filing the COC. Instead, they filed the COC knowing that this discovery was missing. In addition, the case is straightforward and the total amount of discovery is small. Thus, the COC was filed without due diligence when evaluating the Section 245.50(5)(a) factors.

III. The Good Cause Extension Did Not Stop the Speedy Trial Clock

On June 29, 2026, defense counsel received a good cause extension to file a motion challenging the validity of the COC. If that request stopped the speedy trial clock, the case would not be dismissed pursuant to CPL § 30.30 because the People would still have additional time to validly declare ready for trial even if the COC was invalid.

CPL § 245.50(4)(c)(i) provides:

Upon request, the court may extend the time period to challenge a certificate of compliance or supplemental certificate of compliance beyond the thirty-five days for good cause shown. A request for extension shall be made before the expiration of the thirty-five days. Unless the court finds that the prosecutor unreasonably delayed in responding to the defense's good faith efforts to confer or that the prosecutor did not file the certificate of compliance in good faith, any such extension shall be excluded from a speedy trial calculation pursuant to paragraph (b) of subdivision four of section 30.30 of this chapter.

Here, the good cause extension did not stop the speedy trial clock because the COC was not filed in good faith. There are some instances where a COC is deemed invalid but it was filed in good faith, and accordingly, any exclusion for a good cause extension would not be chargeable to the People. For example, if the prosecution looked for the discoverable material and thought they produced everything, but it turns out that they were mistaken, they may not have exercised due diligence but they would have filed the COC in good faith. That is not this case. As discussed above, the People filed the COC knowing they did not have the 911 calls or any impeachment material for the officers. They could have waited to file the COC and SOR, or made additional requests, but instead filed the COC and SOR solely for the purpose of stopping the speedy trial clock. Thus, the COC was not filed in good faith and the period from June 29 to August 10 is chargeable to the People.¹

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds the People's COC invalid. The Court also finds, independent of the validity of the COC, that the SOR filed on June 1 and the oral statement of readiness in court on June 29 were illusory because the People were not actually ready to proceed to trial. Because more than 90 days elapsed between the filing of the accusatory instrument on May 6, 2026, and the setting of a motion schedule on August 10, the People exceeded their 90-day speedy trial time limitation. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Sealing will be stayed for 30 days.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: October 15, 2026

ENTER:

Hon. Philip N. Pilmar

Judge, Criminal Court

FOOTNOTES

1.   But the People never filed a supplemental COC and SOR, and accordingly, there was no basis to stop the speedy trial clock until August 10 when defense counsel requested a motion schedule.

Philip N. Pilmar, J.