The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Thomas C. Gehlhaus, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the branches of defendant's motion seeking to strike the certificate of compliance as improper and dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds are denied, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court to determine the remaining branch of defendant's motion and for all further proceedings.

On June 23, 2023, an accusatory instrument was filed charging defendant with violating three Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses, which included a misdemeanor, and defendant was arraigned thereon. The case was adjourned to June 28, 2023 so that defendant could retain an attorney. On June 28, defendant had not hired an attorney and the case was repeatedly adjourned until July 26, 2023, when defendant finally obtained counsel. The People concede that they should be charged with the 90 days from July 26 to October 24, 2023, when they filed an off-calendar certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR), which included a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification. The People also filed an off-calendar supplemental COC, along with an SOR, on October 25, 2023, as well as a second off-calendar supplemental COC and SOR on October 27, 2023. On November 27, 2023, the District Court set a motion schedule.

In December 2023, defendant moved to, among other things, strike the October 24, 2023 COC as improper and dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds. Defendant argued that, on October 24, the People provided disciplinary records for two potential testifying police officers, which records were insufficient because they did not contain documents referenced, but not included, therein, and that the People failed to show that they had exercised due diligence before filing the supplemental COCs. The People opposed the motion, to which defendant replied. By order dated January 25, 2024, the District Court (David W. Wright, J.) granted the branches of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to strike the COC and dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds, finding that the October 2024 COC was improper since the People had failed to exercise "good faith and due diligence in attempting to obtain the disciplinary records" (People v Gehlhaus, 82 Misc 3d 864, 869 [Nassau Dist Ct, 1st Dist 2024]).

Former Criminal Procedure Law § 245.20 (1) (k) (iv)¹ provided that the People shall automatically disclose to the defendant:

"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, including. . . [a]ll evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in the case, that tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness . . . . Information under this subdivision shall be disclosed . . . irrespective of whether the prosecutor credits the information" (emphases added).

When the People filed their COC on October 24, 2023, the controlling case law, a Fourth Department case, People v Johnson (218 AD3d 1347 [2023]), held that automatic disclosure of disciplinary records, pursuant to former CPL 245.20 (1) (k) (iv), then in effect, was only required if the records related to the subject matter of the case. Subsequently, the Appellate Division, Second and Third Departments, and the Appellate Terms in the Second Department, held to the same effect (see People v Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158, 1160 [2024]; People v McCarty, 221 AD3d 1360, 1362 [2023]; People v Earl, 84 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024]; People v Jawad, 84 Misc 3d 31 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024], lv granted 45 NY3d 937 [2026]; People v Woerner, 81 Misc 3d 136[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51401[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]; People v Fuentes, 81 Misc 3d 136[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51399[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023], affd on other grounds __NY3d__, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872 [2025]; People v Weisman, 81 Misc 3d 129[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51248[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]; cf. People v Hamizane, 80 Misc 3d 7, 11 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]).

We note that the Appellate Division, Second Department, held, on April 2, 2025, that "For impeachment purposes, all that is required for impeachment material to be 'related to the subject matter of the case' is that it relate to the credibility of a witness in the case" (People v Coley, 240 AD3d 122, 134 [2025]; cf. People v Henderson, 237 AD3d 853, 854 [2025] [the Appellate Division, Second Department, however, held on April 9, 2025, a week after Coley, that the records, a law enforcement disclosure letter and police misconduct records for detectives "were not otherwise discoverable under CPL 245.20 (1) (k) because they were unrelated to the subject matter of the case"]). In any event, the Coley holding was not the law in 2023 when the People filed their COC in the case at bar and, thus, the People were entitled to rely on and follow the holding of the Fourth Department Johnson case, which was the controlling law at the time of the COC herein (see Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664-665 [1984]; see also People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 482 [2005]).

Since the record on appeal indicates that the disciplinary records for the two potential testifying police officers were not related to the subject matter of the case, the People were not obligated to automatically disclose those records to the defense. Consequently, the COC filed on October 24, 2023 was valid and the attendant SOR was not illusory.

The People had 90 days from the filing of the accusatory instrument on June 23, 2023 to announce their readiness for trial since the most serious offense charged, common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), was an unclassified misdemeanor (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351, 356 [1980]). As of January 2020, absent an individualized finding of special circumstances, the filing of a proper COC is a prerequisite to the People being ready for trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (see CPL 30.30 [5]; 245.20, 245.50 [3]; People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]; People v Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50445[U], *5 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]).

The record indicates that the time from the filing of the accusatory instrument on June 23, 2023 to July 26, 2023, when defendant first appeared with his retained attorney, was excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (f) because defendant was without counsel through no fault of the court (see People v Rodriguez-Acevedo, 81 Misc 3d 130[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51257[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2023]). Only the 90 days from July 26 to October 24, 2023 (when the People filed their COC and their SOR, which included a CPL 30.30 [5-a] certification) was chargeable to the People and, thus, the People timely announced their readiness for trial (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed, the branches of defendant's motion seeking to strike the COC and dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds are denied, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court to determine the remaining branch of defendant's motion and for all further proceedings.

WALSH, J.P., CONWAY and VAZQUEZ-DOLES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: August 20, 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).