The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. William May, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to strike the June 28, 2023 certificate of compliance as improper and dismiss the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds is denied, the accusatory instruments are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for all further proceedings.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, an initial accusatory instrument was filed on March 19, 2023 charging defendant with various counts of Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses, including unclassified misdemeanors. At defendant's arraignment, on March 19, the case was adjourned to March 31, 2023 so that defendant could retain an attorney, which he did. A separate accusatory instrument charging defendant with assault in the third degree was filed on June 7, 2023. On June 28, 2023, the People filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR), which included a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification. The COC named police officers as potential testifying witnesses, and the People stated that they had provided defendant with all known disclosure required pursuant to CPL 245.20 (1).¹ On May 8, 2024, the People filed a supplemental COC, which included the disciplinary records for a potential testifying police officer who was listed in the June 2023 COC, as well as another SOR, which included a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification.

By motion returnable in May 2024, defendant moved to strike the June 28, 2023 COC as improper and dismiss the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds. Defendant argued that more than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People for the time period of March 19, 2023 to May 8, 2024 because the COC filed on June 28 was improper, as it did not include the disciplinary records belatedly provided with the May 2024 supplemental COC; that the May 2024 supplemental COC failed to detail the basis for the People's late disclosure as required by CPL 245.50 (1-a); and that the People had failed to exercise due diligence and make reasonable inquiries regarding these records. The People opposed the motion, to which defendant replied. By order dated June 11, 2024, the District Court (David W. Wright, J.) granted defendant's motion, finding that there was no merit to the People's contention that the disciplinary records were not required to be automatically disclosed pursuant to CPL 245.20 (1) (k), and that the People failed to show that they had exercised good faith and due diligence in filing their June 2023 COC,² rendering it improper and the SOR filed on that date invalid.

It is uncontroverted that defendant received all of the relevant disciplinary records on May 8, 2024. We need not determine whether these records contained impeachment material related to the subject matter of the case since, in any event, the People showed that they had filed their COC on June 28, 2023 in good faith and exercised due diligence after making reasonable inquiries (see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 [2023]). The case commenced in March 2023 and the People first made inquiries regarding the disciplinary records of the police officer in question as early as April 2021 (in relation to a different case), and made repeated requests for that officer's records from November 2021 to May 2024, when the records were finally provided to the People. Although the People's May 2024 supplemental COC did not "detail the basis for the delayed disclosure" so that the court could determine whether the delayed disclosure impacted the propriety of the certificate of compliance (CPL 245.50 [1-a]), their papers in opposition to defendant's motion provided sufficient information to satisfactorily explain the delay. Consequently, the June 28, 2023 COC was proper and the attendant SOR was not illusory.

The People had 90 days from the filing of the initial accusatory instrument in March 2023 to announce their readiness for trial, as the most serious offense charged, aggravated driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2-a] [a]), 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]; Bay, 41 NY3d 200; 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 time from the filing of the initial accusatory instrument on March 19, 2023 to the March 31, 2023 adjourn date was excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (f) because defendant was without an attorney through no fault of the court. Since the People's June 28, 2023 COC has not been shown to be improper, the People were only chargeable with the 89 days from March 31st to June 28th. Consequently, less than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion to strike the June 28, 2023 COC as improper and dismiss the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds is denied, the accusatory instruments are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court 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).

2.   We note that, in discussing the validity of the June 28, 2023 COC, the District Court concludes by finding that "the COC filed December 18, 2023" was invalid. The December date appears to be a typographical error.