The defendant, Timothy Ellis, by motion dated March 6, 2025, moves this Court for an order dismissing the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) §§ 170.30(1)(e) and 30.30. The People oppose the motion in an affirmation dated March 28, 2025. The defense, in response to the People's opposition, submit a Reply Affirmation dated April 18, 2025, clarifying its principal argument and stating that the People misrepresent its position.

Upon review of the defendant's motion, the People's Affirmation in Opposition, the defendant's Reply Affirmation, all accompanying exhibits, prior court orders, and all prior proceedings had herein, the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The defendant was arrested on November 3, 2023, an accusatory instrument was filed on November 4, 2023, and defendant was arraigned on November 5, 2023, on charges including Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) §1192(3) (Operating Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated), a misdemeanor, and related charges.

On January 10, 2024, the People filed an initial Certificate of Compliance (COC) and a Statement of Readiness (SOR). The defense subsequently challenged the validity of this initial COC. This challenge was addressed in a written Decision and Order by this Court, dated October 7, 2024. In that decision, this Court, while denying the defendant's motion to invalidate the COC at that juncture, specifically ordered the People "to disclose the requested audit trails to the Defense, and the underlying disciplinary records in so far as they are 'related to the subject matter of the case'. People v. Jawad, Misc 3d, 2024 WL 4096833 (App. Term, 2d Dept., 2, 11 &13 Jud. Dist. 2024)." (Def. Mot. Ex. 2, p. 3). The People were charged with 66 days of speedy trial time.

On October 17, 2024, the People filed a Supplemental COC (SCOC) and Restatement of Readiness (SOR), stating they had turned over the "Audit Trails" pursuant to this Court's Order (Def. Mot. Ex. 3).

The issue of underlying disciplinary records for Police Officer Brendan Calderone, identified as the arresting officer and sole testifying officer for pre-trial hearings, and trial remained contentious. The defense specifically requested records related to substantiated [*2]misconduct charges against Officer Calderone.

Significantly, at a court appearance on January 21, 2025, before the Honorable Marty Lentz, J.C.C., Judge Lentz reiterated this Court's prior order and orally directed the People to turn over, in line with the prior order, the substantiated allegations against Officer Calderone related to a specific incident from August 26, 2022. The People were given two weeks to do so (Def. Mot. Ex. 5, p.13; People Opp. Para 6). No such disclosure was made by the People in the time allotted.

On February 12, 2025, the People filed another SCOC/RSOR, disclosing "Updated LEOW Information for PO Brendan Calderone," stating this information was not in existence prior to the filing of the initial COC on January 10, 2024 (Def. Mot. Ex. 4).

The defendant now moves to dismiss, arguing that a total of at least 194 days of chargeable time has elapsed.

The defendant argues that the People failed to achieve actual readiness within the statutory 90-day period. Specifically, the defendant contends:

1. The period from November 5, 2023, to January 10, 2024 (filing of initial COC) totaling 66 days, is chargeable to the People as held by this Court's Order of October 7, 2024.

2. The period from October 8, 2024 (the day after this Court's Order) to February 11, 2025 (the day before the People disclosed the Calderone disciplinary records), totaling 126 days, is chargeable due to the People's failure to comply with this Court's explicit order to disclose disciplinary records related to the subject matter of the case.

3. The People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining and disclosing these records, particularly the disciplinary records for Officer Calderone, which the defense argues are directly relevant to the officer's credibility and thus "related to the subject matter of the case" under a proper interpretation of CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv), as supported by People v. Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op 01945 (2d Dept Apr 2, 2025).

The People contend that:

1. Their initial COC filed on January 10, 2024, was valid, and this Court's October 7, 2024, order denied the defendant's motion to invalidate it.

2. Regarding the Calderone disciplinary records, specifically those from an August 26, 2022 incident, they initially believed these were not "related to the subject matter of the case" concerning Mr. Ellis and thus not automatically discoverable.

3. They sought clarification from the Court (Judges Gonzalez and Lentz) regarding the scope of disclosure for these records and were awaiting a response or further direction, and that such efforts demonstrate good faith.

4. The information regarding Officer Calderone's substantiated charges was "not in existence" prior to the filing of their initial COC (a point made in their February 12, 2025 SCOC).

5. They cite People v. Fuentes, 81 Misc 3d 136(A) (App. Term 2d Dept., 2023), for the proposition that disciplinary records from unrelated cases occurring more than two years prior are not subject to automatic discovery.

CPL §30.30(1)(b) requires the People to be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony.

A statement of readiness is valid only if the People are in fact ready to proceed to trial (CPL §30.30[5]; People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985]). Since the 2020 discovery reforms, readiness under CPL §30.30 is inextricably linked to compliance with discovery obligations under CPL Article 245. CPL § 245.50(3) states that "absent an individualized finding of special circumstances...the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate of compliance pursuant to subdivision one of this section." A "proper" COC requires the prosecutor to affirm that, "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery" (CPL §245.50[1]).

CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv) mandates disclosure of "[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..." For purposes of CPL §245.20(1), "all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge 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." See CPL § 245.20 (2) (emphasis added).

The Appellate Division, Second Department, in People v. Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op 01945 (2d Dept Apr 2, 2025), recently clarified the scope of "related to the subject matter of the case" in the context of CPL §245.20(1)(k). The Court held that "[f]or impeachment purposes, all that is required for impeachment material to be 'related to the subject matter of the case' is that it relates to the credibility of a witness in the case." (Id. at 8). The Court further stated that the Legislature did not intend to create an additional layer of analysis requiring a direct factual link to the defendant's specific incident or facts alleged against a defendant when determining what is "related to the subject matter of the case" for impeachment material. (Id. at 7).

The gravamen of this motion lies in whether the People fulfilled their discovery obligations in a timely manner to support their declarations of readiness.

The defendant argues that the 66 days from November 5, 2024, to January 10, 2024, are chargeable to the People pursuant to this Court's October 7, 2024, Order. This time remains chargeable to the People. While denying the motion to invalidate the COC at that time, this Court nevertheless directed the People to disclose outstanding audit trails and some disciplinary records. This directive implies that, as of October 7, 2024, these items, which are discoverable under CPL §245.20(1), had not been fully provided. The People's SCOC of October 17, 2024, disclosed audit trails, acknowledging this earlier deficiency but did not address or disclose the records of substantiated disciplinary charges, despite the Court's granting the People an opportunity to remedy the deficiency.

This Court's Order of October 7, 2024, was unequivocal: the People were to disclose underlying disciplinary records "in so far as they are 'related to the subject matter of the case.'" The People disclosed audit trails on October 17, 2024, but Officer Calderone's disciplinary records, particularly those related to an August 2022 incident involving substantiated abuse of authority, remained undisclosed. The People's reliance on Fuentes to argue that these records [*3]were not "related" is unavailing because Fuentes involved facts and records of unsubstantiated charges against an exonerated officer, not at all like the facts presented here. Moreover, the Appellate Division, Second Department's subsequent decision in Coley makes clear that for impeachment material under CPL §245.20(1)(k)(iv), "related to the subject matter of the case" means related to the officer's credibility. Substantiated findings of abuse of authority and use of unlawful physical force by the sole testifying officer for pre-trial hearings in this case are undeniably relevant to that officer's credibility.

Additionally, Judge Lentz, on January 21, 2025, explicitly ordered the People to turn over these specific records. The People did not comply until February 12, 2025. The People's explanation that they were "seeking clarification" or that the information "was not in existence" prior to the initial COC (an argument which does not address why it took from October 2024, or at latest January 21, 2025, until February 12, 2025, to disclose once ordered) does not demonstrate due diligence in complying with clear judicial orders and ongoing discovery obligations.

The obligation to disclose Brady/Giglio material is longstanding, and CPL Article 245 reinforces this with specific timelines. This means that the prosecution is obligated to disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses (including situations where police officers act as witnesses for the prosecution). The People were on notice from at least October 7, 2024 (this Court's Order), and certainly from January 21, 2025 (Judge Lentz's Order), that these records were required. The failure to provide them until February 12, 2025, rendered their statements of readiness during this intervening period illusory. Therefore, the 126-day period from October 8, 2024, to February 11, 2025, is chargeable to the People.

Indeed, CPL 245.20 (2) reinforces this Court's interpretation of "related to the subject matter of the case" when it mandates disclosure of information "related to the prosecution of a charge." Any effective prosecutor would concede that disciplinary records of substantiated charges against a testifying witness is certainly "related to the prosecution of a charge." A prosecutor's not knowing a witness's history or preparing for its in-court disclosure under cross examination by an effective defense counsel, would have engaged in an unprepared and unsuccessful prosecution. Clearly, then, the officer's disciplinary information here was "related to the prosecution of a charge."

The arresting officer was identified as the sole testifying officer for pre-trial hearings, making his credibility a central issue. The defense was deprived, for a significant period following two judicial orders of critical impeachment material necessary to meaningfully investigate the officer's background, prepare for effective cross-examination at a hearing, and make informed decisions regarding trial strategy or potential plea negotiations. This delay, extending over several months after the court explicitly ordered disclosure of records "related to the subject matter of the case" fundamentally hampered the defense's ability to challenge the lawfulness of the police conduct and the officer's account of the events, thereby undermining the fairness of the proceedings.

• November 5, 2023 — January 10, 2024: 66 days

• October 8, 2024 — February 11, 2025: 126 days

• Total Chargeable Time: 192 days

The People failed to announce and maintain their readiness for trial within the statutorily prescribed 90-day period. Based on the foregoing analysis, at least 192 days are chargeable to the People.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL § 30.30 and CPL §170.30(1)(e) is GRANTED, and the accusatory instrument is hereby dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.