The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Justin Strickland, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for a new determination of the branches of defendant's motion seeking to strike the certificate of compliance as improper and the statement of readiness as illusory, and to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds, following a hearing, in accordance with this decision and order.

On June 26, 2021, a complaint was filed charging defendant with common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]). On July 22, 2021, the People filed, and provided defendant with, a certificate of compliance (COC) and a statement of readiness (SOR), with a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification, including numerous documents and files. On that same day, the People served a subpoena on "FDNY/EMS" to obtain records related to defendant's treatment. On November 23, 2021, the People filed a supplemental COC and SOR, with a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification, which included documents the People received from the FDNY/EMS in response to the subpoena. On March 29, 2022, the Criminal Court (Denise Johnson, J.) set a motion schedule.

By motion returnable in April 2022, defendant moved to strike the July 2021 COC and November 2021 supplemental COC as improper because the People failed to disclose various discoverable items. The People opposed the motion, to which defendant replied. The Criminal Court (Kim Petersen, J.), by orders dated July 6, 2022 and September 13, 2022, found the July and November 2021 COCs to be proper. The People subsequently filed supplemental COCs and SORs on May 4, 2022, May 13, 2022 and July 22, 2022. By motion returnable in July 2022, defendant moved to strike the May 4, 2022 and July 22, 2022 supplemental COCs as improper. The People opposed the motion, to which defendant replied. The Criminal Court (Kim Petersen, J.), by order dated November 4, 2022, found that those COCs were proper. By motion returnable in December 2022, defendant moved for leave to reargue the Criminal Court's November 4th order. In court on March 27, 2023, the Criminal Court (Kim Petersen, J.) granted leave to reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to its November 4th order. Thereafter, the case was adjourned numerous times. The People filed supplemental COCs and SORs on May 23, 2023 and July 7, 2023. By motion returnable in August 2023, defendant moved to, among other things, strike the May 23, 2023 and July 7, 2023 supplemental COCs as improper and the attendant SORs as illusory, and to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds. The People opposed the motion, to which defendant replied. By order dated September 13, 2023, the Criminal Court (Jeffrey Gershuny, J.) denied the motion but found that any supplemental COC filed after the court's July 6, 2022 order directing the People to provide the defense with specified documents was improper.

On September 25, 2023, defense counsel sent the People an email requesting, for the first time, that they provide the defense with defendant's "prisoner profile" document. On September 26, 2023, the People filed a supplemental COC to which this document was annexed. By notice of motion returnable in October 2023, defendant moved for, among other things, leave to reargue "the previously filed motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b), 30.30 (5-a)" or, in the alternative, to strike the September 2023 supplemental COC as improper and the attendant SOR as illusory due to the People's belated disclosure of the "prisoner profile" document, and to dismiss the accusatory instrument. In support of the motion, defendant argued, among other things, that it "is axiomatic that the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence" and, therefore, the COCs should be declared improper. In opposition, the People argued, among other things, that defendant waived his improper COC claims because he did not raise the "prisoner profile" document issue until 795 days after the initial COC was filed in July 2021and that it is unfathomable "that the issue of a Prisoner Profile could not have been known until September 25, 2023."

By order dated November 27, 2023, the Criminal Court (Jeffrey Gershuny, J.) granted the branch of the motion seeking leave to reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to its September 13, 2023 order denying defendant's prior motion. However, the court granted the branch of defendant's October 2023 motion seeking to strike the COCs as improper and the SORs as illusory, finding that the People failed to show that they exercised due diligence to ascertain the existence of the "prisoner profile" document, and granted the branch of the motion seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds finding that, "without a valid COC, the People's statement of readiness was also invalid and the speedy trial clock continued to run from June 26, 2021 until the missing document was disclosed" in September 2023.

On appeal, the People contend that the COCs were improperly stricken because defendant failed to notify them of any potential defect or deficiency related to the COC, and did not file his October 2023 motion, "as soon as practicable"; that the belatedly disclosed "prisoner profile" document was not related to the subject matter of the case and, therefore, was not controlled by the automatic disclosure requirements of CPL 245.20  ¹ ; that the People exercised good faith and due diligence before filing the COC; that dismissal was not warranted because defendant was not prejudiced by the late disclosure; and that less than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People.

Former CPL 245.50 (4), effective May 9, 2022 to August 6, 2025, provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

"4. Challenges. . . .

(b) To the extent that the party is aware of a potential defect or deficiency related to a certificate of compliance or supplemental certificate of compliance, the party entitled to disclosure shall notify or alert the opposing party as soon as practicable.

(c) Challenges related to the sufficiency of a certificate of compliance or supplemental certificates of compliance shall be addressed by motion as soon as practicable, provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to waive a party's right to make further challenges, including but not limited to a motion pursuant to section 30.30 of this chapter" (emphasis added).

When the People filed their initial COC in July 2021, former CPL 245.50 (4), effective May 3, 2020 to May 8, 2022, had no "as soon as practicable" requirement for a defendant to notify or alert the People to a potential defect or deficiency related to a COC or to challenge a COC as improper.² However, once the statute was amended as of May 9, 2022, defendant had to thereafter notify the People of any potential COC deficiency and challenge any COC by motion "as soon as practicable" (former CPL 245.50 [4] [b] and [c]).

In the Criminal Court, the People argued, inter alia, that it is unfathomable "that the issue of a Prisoner Profile could not have been known until September 25, 2023." We note that, in People v Bay (41 NY3d 200, 215 [2023]), the Court of Appeals stated that the "belated disclosure . . . consisted of routinely produced disclosure materials . . . [and] the absence of such significant items of disclosure was readily noticed by the defense." Defendant never responded to the People's argument, in effect, that he had waived any improper COC claim because he had not alerted the People of the missing "prisoner profile" document issue and had not raised it "as soon practicable" following the May 9, 2022 amendment of CPL 245.50 (4). As the Criminal Court's order did not address whether the former CPL 245.50 (4) (b) and (c) requirements were satisfied following the subdivision's May 9, 2022 amendment and, thus, whether defendant could now challenge the COCs (see generally People v Seymore, 84 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2024]), we find, under the particular circumstances presented, that the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Criminal Court for a hearing to determine that threshold issue.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for a new determination of the branches of defendant's motion seeking to strike the COC as improper and the SOR as illusory, and to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds, following a hearing, in accordance with this decision and order.

BUGGS, J.P., TOUSSAINT and LIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: September 25, 2026

FOOTNOTES

1.   The New York State Legislature amended CPL article 245 and CPL 30.30 (5) effective August 7, 2025 (see L 2025, ch 56, part LL §§ 1-5, 7).

2.   CPL 245.50 (4) (b) and (c), as amended August 7, 2025, no longer contain the "as soon as practicable" language.