The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 30.30. The defendant argues that the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and their Supplemental COCs ("SCOCs") are invalid, and that therefore the People have failed to be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the case. The People oppose the defendant's motion. The court previously held the defense motion in abeyance, pending an in camera review of certain materials. Following that review, and for the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is denied.

The defendant contends that certain documents were impermissibly redacted or withheld, and that thus the People's COC and SCOCs are invalid. Each category of documents is discussed below.

The defendant argues that the People have impermissibly redacted an NYPD-generated document regarding the complaining victim ("Victimology Report"). The People provided an unredacted version of this document for in camera review.

Following that review, the court is satisfied that the redactions to this document are permissible under CPL § 245.20(1)(c) (information relating to the "identity of a 911 caller, the victim or witness of an offense defined under article [130] . . . may be withheld, and redacted from discovery materials, without need for" a protective order), or otherwise not discoverable under CPL § 245.20(1)(p) or (1)(q).

The defendant also argues that the People have impermissibly redacted a handwritten document setting forth witness contact information, contending that such redaction is not [*2]allowed under CPL § 245.20(1)(c). The People, in turn, maintain that the redactions are permissible.

The People are only required to provide "adequate contact information" for individuals it knows to have information relevant to the charged offense, or a defense thereto. See generally People v. Baptiste, 70 Misc 3d 706, 710-13 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020) (Espinal, J.) (WitCom satisfies both CPL § 245.20[1][c] and constitutional standards). Accordingly, the People are not required to disclose an unredacted version of this document.

The defendant also takes issue with redactions to a document created by the Survivor Services Bureau, an entity that provides victims with counseling and other services. He asserts that the People cannot redact anything beyond personal identifying information. The People assert that they may redact "more sensitive" information regarding sex crimes victims. They provided an unredacted version of this document for in camera review.

Following that review, the court determines that—although not per se a permissible subject of redaction—the information withheld is not subject to automatic discovery. See CPL § 245.20(1).

The defendant also seeks to invalidate the COC based on a host of issues surrounding disciplinary files for two testifying law enforcement witnesses.

1. Elian Flores — IAB Log # 22-28418

The People initially disclosed a "summary chart" of this log. On November 11, 2024, the defense contacted the People requesting the underlying documentation, closing report, and associated attachments. On December 2, 2024, the People disclosed the requested materials.

2. Elian Flores — Email Discussing Misconduct Allegations

The People initially disclosed an email entitled "New MOS Allegations," and which explained that another police officer, with whom Flores was patrolling, allegedly received a bag containing $3,000. The allegations were contradicted by video footage, and the complainant sought to withdraw the complaint. On November 11, 2024, the defense requested an unredacted copy of the email. The People replied that none of the redacted information related to Flores. On December 2, 2024, the People nevertheless disclosed a less-redacted copy, withholding only the District Attorney's Police Accountability Unit's course of action regarding the allegations.

3. Eliana Hernandez — IAB Log # 19-9625

The People initially disclosed a "summary chart" of this log. On November 11, 2024, the defense contacted the People requesting the underlying documentation, closing report, and associated attachments. On December 2, 2024, the People disclosed the requested materials.

4. Eliana Hernandez — IAB Log # 18-42576

The People initially disclosed a "summary chart" of this log, which was for a failure to "safeguard" an NYPD MetroCard. The allegation was substantiated, and closed on December 27, 2018, with no action taken. On November 11, 2024, the defense contacted the People requesting the underlying documentation, closing report, and associated attachments. The People responded that they do not order IAB logs for allegations regarding lost department [*3]property.

In his motion to controvert the COC, the defendant contends that these underlying documents are discoverable, as they "impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness," CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv). The People maintain that failure to safeguard a MetroCard cannot be considered impeachment material.

The service of a valid COC is a condition precedent to the People's declaration of trial readiness and serves to toll the statutory speedy trial time. See CPL § 30.30(5). The filing of a supplemental COC "shall not impact the validity of the original [COC]" if, as relevant, the original COC was filed "in good faith and after exercising due diligence." CPL § 245.50(1-a). Due diligence "is a familiar and flexible standard" requiring the People to make "reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives." People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023). To determine whether the People have exercised due diligence, courts should evaluate: (1) the efforts that the prosecutor made to comply with CPL § 245; (2) the volume of discovery "provided and outstanding" in the case at the time of the challenge; (3) whether the missing material would have been obvious to a diligent prosecutor; (4) the "complexity of the case;" (5) the prosecutor's "explanation for any discovery lapse;" and (6) how the People responded when they were informed that discovery was missing. Id.

The law is unsettled as to what, precisely, CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv) requires the People to disclose. See People v. Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op 01945 (2d Dep't 2025) (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. Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158 (2d Dep't 2024) (rejecting contention that CPL § 245.20[1][k] requires automatic disclosure of entire disciplinary record for every law enforcement officer involved in a criminal case; "a plain reading of the automatic disclosure statute" establishes that the People are only required to disclose all items and information that "relate to the subject matter of the case") (citing People v. McCarty, 221 AD3d 1360, 1362 [3d Dep't 2023]); Matter of Jayson C., 200 AD3d 447, 448-49 (1st Dep't 2021) (holding that there is "no reason to allow more limited access to impeachment materials in a juvenile suppression or fact-finding hearing than in a criminal suppression hearing or trial," without expressly considering whether CPL § 245.20[1][k][iv]'s requirements are circumscribed by CPL § 245.20[1]'s language limiting discovery to information relating to the subject matter of the case).

The People have demonstrated that they acted with diligence in complying with discovery mandates. As discussed above, the redactions to the Victimology Report, witness contact information, and the Survivor Services Bureau document, were all appropriately founded in the statute. Moreover, even assuming (without deciding) that the defense was entitled to all of the disciplinary records sought, the People also had a reasonable basis in declining to gather and disclose such documents, given the statute's text and the current case law. See CPL § 245.20(2); CPL § 245.50(1); CPL § 245.80; People v. Portillo, 73 Misc 3d 216, 246 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2021) (Kelley, J.) ("Due to the great variety of differing opinions on the interpretation of CPL § 245.20 . . . it is clear that the People have been acting in good faith and have provided discovery in harmony with their understanding of the requirements."). In any event, the People acted relatively quickly in turning over those items after the defense requested them. Bay, 41 NY3d at [*4]211 (the People are required "to make reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives") (quotations omitted) (emphasis added).

In sum, this court declines to invalidate the People's COC or SCOCs.

Nevertheless, this court directs the People to make reasonable efforts to obtain the documents underlying IAB Log # 18-42576 and disclose them to defense. Nothing in this court's opinion should be construed as concluding that such documents must be disclosed pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv), or that the documents impeach the credibility of Police Officer Flores.

May 27, 2024, to May 31, 2024: 4 days.

May 31, 2024, to June 27, 2024: 27 days.

June 27, 2024, to July 15, 2024: 18 days.

July 15, 2024, to July 18, 2024: 3 days.

July 18, 2024, to July 24, 2024: 6 days.

July 24, 2024, to Present: 0 days.

Total Chargeable Time: 58 days.

Accordingly, the motion to invalidate the People's COC and SCOCs and dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is denied.