The defendant, who stands charged with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree (P.L. §§ 110/125.25(1)) and related and lesser charges, has moved to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50(4) and to dismiss the indictment pursuant to C.P.L. § 210.20(1)(g).

After careful review of the defendant's motion, the People's response, the defendant's reply, an oral colloquy held in Court, the procedural history of the case, and all relevant legal authority, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The defendant argues that his right to a speedy trial under C.P.L. § 30.30 has been violated, because the People did not validly file their statement of readiness, and did not comply with Article 245. That statute requires the People to make certain automatic disclosures and, upon their completion, to serve and file a certificate of compliance stating 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." C.P.L. § 245.50(1). A proper certificate of compliance is a prerequisite to a valid statement of readiness for trial. See C.P.L. §§ 30.30(5), 245.50(3). When a defendant is aware of a defect or deficiency in the certificate of compliance, he shall inform the People "as soon as practicable." C.P.L. § 245.50(4)(b). Challenges to the sufficiency of a certificate of compliance "shall be addressed by motion." C.P.L. § 245.50(4)(a).

According to the indictment, the defendant is charged with having fired a loaded firearm at another individual, striking that person and causing serious physical injury to him, on November 7, 2023 in Kings County.

On April 24, 2024, the People served and filed a certificate of compliance pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50(1), accompanied by a statement of readiness for trial.

The defendant argues that the People's statement of readiness was illusory, because the [*2]People had not completed their discovery obligations under Article 245, and so their certificate of compliance, a necessary prerequisite for a valid statement of readiness, was improper. Specifically, the defendant points to the fact that when the People certified compliance under C.P.L. § 245.50(1), they had not disclosed: 1) records related to a Queens arrest of the defendant, which linked the defendant to the vehicle used in this case and provided a basis for identifying the defendant as a suspect; 2) audit trails for 14 body-worn camera videos; 3) all 911 recordings, radio runs, and Sprint reports from the defendant's arrest; 4) photographs of the defendant's property vouchered during his arrest; 5) video footage of the crime scene from the day of the shooting and the previous day, which was used to create still photographs utilized during the defendant's interrogation; 6) body-worn camera footage of the defendant's arrest; and 7) records of Det. Ainoo's arrest of the defendant, which served as the basis for identifying the defendant as the shooter in this case. Zuckerman Mem. of Law p. 2-3 (Feb. 20, 2025).

The standard for evaluating the propriety of a certificate of compliance is whether it was filed "in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances," C.P.L. § 245.50(1). An improper certificate of compliance is insufficient to serve as the necessary prerequisite for trial readiness. See C.P.L. §§ 30.30(5), 245.50(3); People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023); People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann, 197 AD3d 787 (2d Dept. 2021); People v. LaClair, 2023 NY Slip Op 23146 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2023); People v. Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132(A) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2022). Prejudice to the defendant as the result of belated discovery is irrelevant to a determination of the validity of a statement of readiness for trial. People v. Gaskin, 214 AD3d 1353 (4th Dept. 2023).

The People are required to "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 . . . all statements, written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording, made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including all police reports, notes of police and other investigators, and law enforcement agency reports." C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(e). "[A]ll 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." C.P.L. § 245.20(2). The People are required to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under [C.P.L. § 245.20(1)] . . . and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control; provided that the prosecutor shall not be required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum material or information which the defendant may thereby obtain." Id.

In determining whether the People acted in "good faith" and whether their efforts were "reasonable under the circumstances," a Court must necessarily evaluate the People's diligence in making the required disclosures under C.P.L. § 245.20(2). Inherent to that evaluation is an examination of the efforts made, the reasons for any failure to provide a required item, and any remedial steps taken that show a responsiveness to the defendant's inquiries and demands. See People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 (2023). The diligence the statute requires is not a pass to allow a prosecutor to achieve only substantial compliance with the law's mandates. The goal remains that a defendant should have access to all materials and information to assist him in evaluating the People's evidence and in establishing a defense against that evidence. The statute requires diligence, good faith, and reasonableness; it "does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecutor.'" Bay, 41 NY3d at 212.

The statute contemplates that the parties may disagree about whether specific materials are discoverable, and the Legislature has set forth a set of non-exclusive procedures to facilitate the resolution of such disagreements without mandating penalties to the non-disclosing party. See C.P.L. § 245.35.

Prior to certifying compliance, the assigned ADA to spoke to the assigned detective and other members of law enforcement to ensure that the material in the electronic police file was disclosed and to confirm that no other discoverable material existed. The People disclosed dozens of activity logs, body-worn camera videos and metadata, DD5s, and surveillance videos; medical records from two hospitals; Giglio material; other police paperwork, including from the Evidence Collection Team; laboratory information management system records; grand jury testimony; photographs; Rikers phone call recordings; and property vouchers. In total, it appears that the People disclosed hundreds of pages of documents and additional materials.

With the guidance of that authority and acknowledgement of the discovery the People produced in mind, the Court turns now to each item which serves as a basis for the defendant's challenge.

1) Records related to the Queens arrest of the defendant

On October 14, 2023, the defendant was arrested in Queens while driving the 2007 Audi observed at the scene of the shooting in this case. Tr. 31:22-23 (Apr. 4, 2025). This arrest was one of the facts relied upon when the People sought a search warrant. Id. at 31:19-25, 35:1-7. The defendant has requested, but not received, documents and information related to this Queens arrest. Id. at 32:1-4. During the pretrial suppression hearing, Det. Hatt testified that the Queens arrest linking the defendant to the 2007 Audi occurred on a different date, September 16, 2024. Id. at 32:14-21. The People have maintained that this material is not discoverable. Id. at 32:8-10. The People stated that at the time the People certified compliance with Article 245, they did not believe that these materials were discoverable, and when the defendant requested the materials, the case to which they pertained had already been sealed, rendering them unavailable to the People. Id. at 38:17-25.

The parties were unable to clarify whether Det. Hatt relied on information from one prior arrest of the defendant in the 2007 Audi, or whether there were two arrests — one on September 16 and one on October 14 — that served as the source of his information. In essence, the People's view is that, despite their reliance both in their investigation and in their proposed trial evidence, on information from a case that occurred in a different county during a different time period, strictly speaking, that information does not "relate to the subject matter of the case." C.P.L. § 245.20(1). The People's position, no matter how sincere, is too narrow. Since Det. Hatt relied on the information linking the defendant to this particular vehicle during a particular time period in attempting to identify the defendant as a suspect and as part of the factual basis supporting the search warrant that was granted, this information related to the subject matter of this case, and should have been disclosed if it was in the People's actual or constructive possession. However, the People's certificate of compliance is not invalidated for failure to disclose this information. First, there is no definitive appellate authority on the subject. Second, despite their flawed reasoning, the People appear to have had no intent to deprive the defendant of relevant information. The People reasonably, and in good faith, believed that this information did not relate to the subject matter of the case and therefore fell outside the scope of their discovery [*3]obligations. Once the issue was addressed to the Court, and the Court directed the People to produce the missing discovery, they sought to do so, without delay. At that point, they discovered that the case had been sealed, and the information was legally unavailable to the People.^[FN1]

C.P.L. § 160.50(1) provides: "Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person . . . the record of such action or proceeding shall be sealed and the clerk of the court wherein such criminal action or proceeding was terminated shall immediately notify the commissioner of the division of criminal justice services and the heads of all appropriate police departments and other law enforcement agencies that the action has been terminated in favor of the accused, and unless the court has directed otherwise, that the record of such action or proceeding shall be sealed." Among the items that must be sealed are "all official records and papers . . . relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with the division of criminal justice services, any court, police agency, or prosecutor's office," and these items must "not [be] made available to any person or public or private agency[.]" C.P.L. § 160.50(1)(c) (emphasis added). Thus, even if the People had obtained the requested materials prior to the sealing of the Queens cases, those materials would have had to be sealed and would no longer be available.

Once the items were sealed, they were no longer in the custody or control of the People, and were unavailable to them. The Court of Appeals has held that the sealing statute, C.P.L. § 160.50(1), is to be strictly construed, including the six statutory exceptions setting forth when records may be unsealed, and that sealed records may not be disclosed "except where the statute explicitly provides otherwise." Katherine B. v. Cataldo, 5 NY3d 196, 203 (2005). While there is a provision permitting a law enforcement agency access, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecution is not a law enforcement agency for purposes of this statute. Id. See also New York State Comm'n on Jud. Conduct v. Rubinstein, 23 NY3d 570 (2014). Unsealing records for the purpose of meeting discovery obligations is not an exception recognized by the statute, and has been explicitly prohibited by the Second Department. See In re Akieba Mc., 72 AD3d 689 (2d Dept. 2010); see also Albany Co. Dist. Attorney's Office ex rel. Barrett Tp. Police v. William T., 88 AD3d 1133 (3d Dept. 2011); People v. Marcus A., 28 Misc 3d 667 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2010).

Based on this authority, the defendant's argument that the People's certificate of compliance was not proper because the People did not provide the records which were ultimately sealed, either before or after sealing occurred, is unavailing. Since C.P.L. § 160.50(1) provides that sealed records may be made available to the defendant or his designated agent, the Court will order the defendant's records from his prior case unsealed upon a proper defense application. See also C.P.L. § 245.30(3).

2) Audit trails for 14 body-worn camera videos

The People assert that all discoverable materials in the body-worn camera audit trails were disclosed. Ulberg Aff. ¶ 15(a) (Mar. 21, 2025). The defendant states that he has not received the annotations by the officers, the specific device audit trails detailing whether a device was working properly, or information on when the devices were last calibrated. Tr. 6:20-[*4]7:14 (Mar. 28, 2025). The People state that they disclosed some notation category tags and markers on January 16, 2024, and additional metadata was disclosed on April 24, 2024. Id. at 8:19-25; 9:4-21. The defendant states that the metadata which was disclosed was incomplete, specifically that at least some annotations were not disclosed. Id. at 11, 12:11-16, 13:20-23. Additionally, the People state that they disclosed the metadata detailing when devices were activated and deactivated on January 14, 2024. Id. at 16:6-16.

The Court also reviewed the OneDrive folder of discovery that the People provided to the defendant. On January 16, 2024, the People disclosed three files containing annotations for video footage from P.O. Esposito during the defendant's interrogation. On April 24, 2024, the People disclosed seven files labelled as body-worn camera footage metadata, related to Officers Kevin Rubio, Christopher Harper, Christopher Gallagher, Kyanna Simon, Bryan Lee, Evan Siegel, and Antonio Exposito. These files contained GPS coordinates and corresponding timestamps. They did not contain any annotations.

NYPD body-worn cameras generate three types of audit trails: evidence, device, and user. See People v. Ballard, 82 Misc 3d 403 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2023). Police officers have access to evidence and device audit trails, but not user audit trails. Id. "Evidence audit trails collect information regarding specific video footage and include it's start time, upload time, and categories and information added to the video from any user." Id. at 408. "Device audit trails record information about the camera itself: when it's turned on, when it's turned off, when it's connected to a charger or dock, battery life of the device, and how many bytes of digital information are available to record on the device." Id. at 409. "User audit trails record actions a specific user makes to video footage, such as adding categories, tags and information." Id. The user audit trails do not contain any unique information not already captured in the device and evidence audit trail. Id. at 410.^[FN2]

Based on the Court's review of the OneDrive link, it appears that the People did in fact disclose the audit trails for seven officers and for the interrogation video. The defendant has not identified any specific audit trail that he is missing. During the colloquy on the record, the defendant also demanded calibration records for the body-worn cameras. That request is unsupported by any authority and falls outside the scope of automatic discovery which the People are required to disclose by C.P.L. § 245.20(1).

Based on the foregoing, the People satisfied their obligations, and this challenge is denied.

3) 911 recordings, radio runs, and Sprint reports from the defendant's arrest

On December 11, 2024, the People disclosed a 911 call recording, Sprint report, and radio run relating to the defendant's arrest, along with a supplemental certificate of compliance. Zuckerman Mem. of Law p. 14. The People state that they requested these materials from the [*5]police on November 28, 2023; March 15, 2024; March 22, 2024; and August 22, 2024. Ulberg Aff. at ¶ 15(b). According to the defendant, the People received the materials on August 23, 2024. Zuckerman Mem. of Law at p. 14. The People state that they do not know the date the materials were received, but admit that the materials were in the People's actual possession prior to the defendant's December 10 request. Tr. 5:9-7:2 (Apr. 4, 2025). The People state that they did not realize they had not provided these materials to the defendant until the defendant requested them during the suppression hearing on December 10, 2024,^[FN3] and then promptly provided them. See Ulberg Aff. at ¶ 15(b); Zuckerman Mem. of Law at p. 14. The People state that the failure to provide the materials earlier was an inadvertent error. Ulberg Aff. at ¶ 15(b).

After the first requests for the material was made, the assigned ADA "was told that all 911 calls that existed were disclosed." Tr. 4:13-14 (Apr. 4, 2025). The defense requested additional materials over the summer, in either July or August, prompting the People's August request. See id. at 4:15-16, 5:2-11; Ulberg Aff. at ¶ 15(b). When the materials were received by the People, the assigned ADA did not receive any specific notification that the police had sent these additional materials. Having already disclosed the materials that were in her possession and believing, based on the prior representations from NYPD, that discovery was complete, the ADA had no reason to continue to review the electronic discovery file for new material, and it was reasonable for her to rely on her office's electronic notification system. Since she did not receive an alert, she did not realize the materials were in her possession. Tr. 5:9-7:2 (Apr. 4, 2025). When the defendant requested the materials on December 10, 2024, mid-hearing, the ADA promptly checked the electronic file for the materials, realized they were in her actual possession, and provided them to the defendant the following morning. Id. at 8:1-9:12.

All parties agree that the 911 calls and related materials were required to be disclosed. However, the belated disclosure was not the result of a lack of diligence on the part of the People, because the People made repeated requests for the materials and were told they did not exist. When 911 recordings and other police recordings exist, the arresting officer or lead detective "shall expeditiously notify the prosecution in writing upon the filing of an accusatory instrument of the existence of all such known recordings." C.P.L. § 245.55(3)(a). When the failure to disclose recordings is "due to a failure to comply with this obligation [in C.P.L. § 245.55(3)(a)] by police officers, or other law enforcement or prosecution personnel, the court upon motion of the defendant shall impose an appropriate remedy or sanction pursuant to [C.P.L. §] 245.80[.]" C.P.L. § 245.55(3)(b). The defendant must identify prejudice as a result of the belated disclosure before the court may impose an appropriate sanction. See C.P.L. § 245.80(1). The statute clearly articulates a consequence when the People do not timely disclose 911 and other recordings because NYPD has failed to inform them of the recordings' existence: a sanction under C.P.L. § 245.80, not invalidation of the certificate of compliance. The defendant's challenge to the People's certificate of compliance is denied. The Court will consider any application the defendant makes for a sanction, a part of which must be an articulation of the prejudice resulting from the lateness of the disclosure.

4) Photographs of the defendant's property

When the defendant was arrested, police officers vouchered a hat. Zuckerman Mem. of Law p. 13. During the defendant's interrogation, Det. Hatt showed the defendant a photograph of a man wearing a bright blue hat. Id. On December 5, 2025, the People disclosed two photographs of a blue hat that had been vouchered as the defendant's property during his arrest. Id. at p. 14.

The People state that the prior ADA spoke to Det. Hatt and "believed she was in receipt of all discovery" prior to certifying compliance." Tr. 11:1-4 (Apr. 4, 2025). When the currently assigned ADA received the case, she contacted Det. Hatt on July 25, 26, 27, 29 and August 1, 2024, as well as on subsequent dates. Id. at 11:5-9. The assigned ADA now believes that Det. Hatt did not realize that he had failed to scan the photographs of the hat, and had failed to provide the hard copies. Id. at 11:11-25. Det. Hatt later came into the ADA's office and brought his physical file, which the assigned ADA looked through, leading her to discover the photographs of the hat. Id. at 11:13-16, 12:16-23. When she found the photographs, she promptly disclosed them to the defendant. Id. at 12:16-18, 14:9-11. The defendant first learned that photographs of the hat potentially existed during Det. Hatt's testimony at the pre-trial hearing on November 26, 2024. Id. at 13:19-25. The photographs were not disclosed until approximately nine days after Det. Hatt's testimony. Id. at 14:1-12.

When the photographs of the hat were disclosed, on December 5, 2024, the People also disclosed two additional photographs that were of a second alleged shooter wearing a red hooded sweatshirt. Id. at 14:22-15:3. These photographs seem to have been discovered when the assigned ADA was looking for the photographs of the hat. Id. at 15:5-8.

The People requested the discovery in this case from NYPD, and made follow-up requests for items they believed to be missing. Prior to certifying compliance, the People had been informed that all discovery had been provided. At that time, the People did not know that the belatedly disclosed photographs existed, and "it would not have been particularly obvious to the People . . . that [the photographs] were missing[.]" People v. McMahon, 2025 NY Slip Op 01951, 3 (2d Dept. 2025).^[FN4] When the People learned of the photographs, they immediately undertook a search to ascertain the existence of any additional material, and they promptly disclosed what they found. The People had relied on the representations of the NYPD and "it appears that, due to mere error and oversight, the missing [photographs] were not initially disclosed." Id. at 4 (citations omitted). "The People established that their initial failure to disclose the missing materials was inadvertent and without bad faith or a lack of due diligence, which is substantiated by the fact that the People immediately disclosed the materials once they learned that they had not been turned over in the initial release." Id. (internal citations omitted). The defendant's challenge to the certificate of compliance based on the belated disclosure of these photographs is denied.

5) Video footage of the crime scene

Prior to certifying compliance, the People disclosed to the defendant photographs of a person wearing a blue hat outside the shooting location. Tr. 16:6-12 (Apr. 4, 2025). These photographs were not taken from the surveillance video footage of the day of the incident. Id. at 16:13-15. The photographs were used during the defendant's interrogation. Id. at 16:20-25. On May 21, 2024, the defendant first requested the video footage from which the photographs were taken. Id. at 16:15-17:17. On July 19, 2024, the originally assigned ADA represented that she was still speaking to the detectives to obtain the video footage. Id. at 18:1-5. On August 1, 2024, the newly assigned ADA said the detectives said that all video footage had been disclosed as part of a DD-5. Id. at 18:5-8, 19:9-21.^[FN5]

However, neither ADA believed that the video footage from which the still photographs were taken was discoverable. Id. at 19:24-20:2. This particular footage had not been included in a DD-5. Id. at 20:4-5. During the pre-trial suppression hearing, testimony was given about the video footage from which the still photographs were made. Id. at 21:12-13. As noted above, within 24 hours of that testimony, the ADA met with Det. Hatt and reviewed his physical file. Id. at 21:12-15. The detective then returned to his office and shared all surveillance videos that had not been previously sent to the ADA. Id. at 21:15-18. The ADA in turn promptly disclosed the video footage on December 4, 2024, after the Court ruled that it must be disclosed. Id. at 18:21-22, 20:2-4, 21:17-18, 22:12-19. The disclosure also included additional surveillance video footage from the day of the incident. The ADA explained that she did not know beforehand that this video existed because she had previously spoken to Det. Hatt and not Det. Grant. Id. at 21:23-22:5. Apparently, the video footage was in Det. Grant's physical file, and Det. Hatt either did not know it existed or, if he did, did not so inform the assigned ADA. Because Det. Hatt was the lead detective assigned to the case, he was responsible for locating and maintaining all of the evidence related to the investigation, and so it was reasonable for the assigned ADA to rely on Det. Hatt's representations.

Once it became apparent to the assigned ADA that the video footage existed and was relevant to the subject matter of the case, the ADA worked diligently to promptly obtain the full extent of the outstanding video and immediately disclosed it. "[T]he statute does not require or anticipate a 'perfect prosecutor.'" People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 (2023). Rather, it requires a reasonable and diligent prosecutor, acting in good faith. The People met that standard here, and the defendant's challenge is denied.

6) Body-worn camera footage of the defendant's arrest

On August 23, 2024, the People disclosed body-worn camera footage belonging to four officers recorded on the date of the defendant's arrest. Id. at 24. One of the officers whose footage was belatedly disclosed was P.O. Saintjean, who testified at the pretrial suppression hearing and whose body-worn camera footage was received in evidence at that hearing. Tr. [*6]24:15-18 (Ap. 4, 2025). The People requested body-worn camera footage on March 13, March 22, and April 10, 2024. Id. at 25:13-14. On April 10, 2024, the People were informed that no additional body-worn camera footage from the date of the defendant's arrest existed, and the People confirmed that information the same day. Id. at 25:14-19. See also Court Exhibit 1 (Emails from Marilyn Marte, Denise Montano, and Stacie Ulberg). When the case was transferred to the currently assigned ADA, she renewed the request for body-worn camera footage on July 25, August 14, and August 19, 2024. Tr. at 26:5-8 (Apr. 4, 2025). Several days after the last request, the People received the body-worn camera footage, and promptly disclosed it. Id. at 26:7-8.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the People exercised the requisite diligence and acted reasonably and in good faith. See also C.P.L. § 245.55(3)(b). The defendant's challenge on this basis is denied.

7) Records of Det. Ainoo's arrest of the defendant

The People sought to have Det. Ainoo testify at trial to his identification of the defendant as the person depicted in surveillance video of the shooting, and a hearing was ordered pursuant to People v. Mosley, 41 NY3d 640 (2024). The basis for Det. Ainoo's identification was his arrest of the defendant in October 2024. Tr. 28:23-29:6 (Apr. 4, 2025). When the defendant initially requested the associated documents and information, the ADA assigned to the case at the time responded that the material was not discoverable and had already been sealed. Id. at 28:7-9. The Court granted an unsealing order and the materials were disclosed to the defendant, along with a supplemental certificate of compliance, on August 13, 2024. Id. at 30:1-4. Although the People were incorrect that these records were unrelated to this case, pursuant to C.P.L. § 160.50(1)(c), these records were unavailable to the People, and not in the People's custody or control. See discussion, supra. Therefore, the defendant's challenge on this basis is denied.

Based on the foregoing, the defendant's challenge to the People's certificate of compliance is denied, and the Court finds that the People's certificate of compliance was proper. All items obtained and disclosed after the People's April 24, 2024 certificate of compliance were unknown to the People despite repeated requests for them, were sealed and thus not in the People's control, or were mistakenly not disclosed, despite the People's diligence. In light of "the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor's office to comply with the statutory requirements, the volume of discovery provided and outstanding . . . the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery" People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 (2023), the Court finds that the People have met their burden of "establishing that they did, in fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC despite a belated or missing disclosure[.]" Id. at 213. This is not a case in which the People provided a substantial quantity of discovery, and then abandoned their efforts, deciding they had done enough. The People responded to counsel's inquiries, and repeatedly returned to the case detective in an effort to be sure all materials had been given to them. Therefore, the Court concludes that the People's certificate of compliance was a sufficient prerequisite for the People to announce their readiness for trial. See C.P.L. §§ 30.30(5), [*7]245.50(3). The defendant's challenge to the People's certificate of compliance is denied and the Court accepts the People's April 24, 2024 statement of readiness as valid.

The Court makes the following calculations:

On November 28, 2023, this case commenced with the filing of the felony complaint in criminal court. See C.P.L. § 1.20 (17); see also C.P.L. § 100.05; People v. Lomax, 50 NY2d 351 (1980). Therefore, the People had 182 days in which to announce their readiness for trial. See C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(a). "[O]nce the defendant has shown the existence of a delay greater than six months, the burden of proving that certain periods within that time should be excluded falls upon the People." People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 (1980). See also People v. Luperon, 85 NY2d 71 (1995).

The case was adjourned for grand jury action, and calendared for arraignment on the indictment on January 12, 2024. The People did not announce their readiness for trial during this period, nor establish their entitlement to an exclusion under C.P.L. § 30.30(4), so this period is chargeable against the People.

45 chargeable days.

On January 12, 2024, the defendant was arraigned on the indictment. The defendant requested inspection of the grand jury minutes and the case was adjourned to March 6, 2024 for the Court's decision.

Adjournments for motion practice, including a motion to inspect under C.P.L. § 210.30, are excluded pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a). See People v. Lisene, 201 AD3d 738 (2d Dept. 2022).

0 chargeable days.

On March 6, 2024, the Court issued its decision finding that the indictment was supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the proceedings in the grand jury had been proper. The People had not yet certified compliance with their discovery obligations. The case was adjourned to April 17, 2024 for the People's certificate of compliance. Since the People were not ready for trial and did not establish another exclusion, this period is chargeable against the People.

42 chargeable days.

When the case was heard on April 17, 2024, the People had not certified compliance with their discovery obligations. The case was adjourned to May 22, 2024 for the People to certify compliance and for the defendant to review discovery.

On April 24, 2024, the People certified compliance and announced their readiness for trial. Although the Court has not yet conducted an inquiry pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(5), the Court has denied the defendant's challenges to the validity of the People's statement of readiness, and therefore the People's statement of readiness was sufficient to toll the C.P.L. § 30.30 clock.

7 chargeable days.

On May 22, 2024, defense counsel acknowledged receiving discovery and was in the process of reviewing it. The case was adjourned to May 28, 2024 for a hearing to modify the [*8]defendant's securing order, pursuant to C.P.L. § 530.60, based on a new arrest. Since the People had already announced their readiness for trial and the adjournment was for an ancillary proceeding, this adjournment is excluded. See C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).

0 chargeable days.

On May 28, 2024, the § 530.60 hearing was held, and the defendant's securing order was modified. The Court directed the parties to confer pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.35, and the case was adjourned to June 26, 2024 for the defendant's certificate of compliance. Because the People had previously announced their readiness for trial and the adjournment was not at the People's request, this period is excluded.

0 chargeable days.

On June 26, 2024, the defendant represented that he was missing some items of discovery and the case was adjourned to July 24, 2024 to resolve the discovery issues and for the defendant's certificate of compliance. The People had previously announced their readiness for trial, and the adjournment was not caused by the People's lack of readiness for trial, so this adjournment is excluded.

0 chargeable days.

On July 24, 2024, the defendant represented that he believed that he was missing discovery. The defendant requested that information in IAB and CCRB reports be unredacted, as well as disclosure of DD5 attachments, the paperwork related to Det. Ainoo's arrest of the defendant, surveillance video, search warrant returns, and other items. The People represented that the IAB and CCRB documents were redacted to protect the privacy of witnesses who had made complaints, and that the DD5 attachments were spiral notes which had been previously disclosed to the defendant. The People also stated that the paperwork from Det. Ainoo's arrest had been sealed and so, as outlined above, it was not available to the People. The Court directed the defendant to present an unsealing order for that paperwork if he wished to obtain it, and again directed the parties to confer pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.35. The defendant was directed to file a motion challenging the People's certificate of compliance, pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50(4), if the discovery issues could not be resolved.

On August 13, 2024, the People served and filed a supplemental certificate of compliance, pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.60, disclosing materials from a case that had been unsealed pursuant to the Court's order. The unsealing had been granted at the defendant's request. The People had previously announced their readiness for trial and the sealed records which the defendant sought were outside the People's control. The adjournment was not caused by the People's lack of readiness for trial, and so this adjournment is excluded.

0 chargeable days.

On August 14, 2024, the parties had not resolved the discovery issues and a motion schedule was set to challenge the validity of the People's certificate of compliance. The case was adjourned to October 2, 2024, and then to October 9, 2024, for decision.

The defendant did not file a motion to challenge the certificate of compliance. He did, however, file an omnibus motion. This period is excluded for consideration of the defendant's motion under C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).

On August 23, 2024, the People served and filed a supplemental certificate of compliance, pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.60. The People disclosed additional Rikers phone call recordings, updated Giglio information for Det. Ainoo, and additional DD5s, none of which existed when the People first certified compliance with Article 245. The People also disclosed names and work affiliation for additional law enforcement officers, a copy of the physical summons given to the defendant, additional body-worn camera footage and memo books, and stated that the People had requested these items prior to certifying compliance and were told they did not exist.

0 chargeable days.

On October 9, 2024, the Court issued its decision on the defendant's omnibus motion, as well as his motion to inspect the grand jury minutes on a second indictment. The case was adjourned to November 15, 2024 for pre-trial suppression hearings on this case and for the defendant to file a motion to renew on his second unrelated indictment. Because the adjournment was for the determination of the defendant's motions to suppress and renew, this period is excluded. See C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).

0 chargeable days.

On November 15, 2024, pre-trial suppression hearings commenced. The case was adjourned to November 26, 2024, and then again to December 11, 2024 and February 6, 2025 to complete the hearings. On December 4, 2024, while the hearing was ongoing, the People served and filed a supplemental certificate of compliance, pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.60, disclosing surveillance video footage from a date preceding the shooting. The People reiterated that they did not believe the video footage was discoverable but disclosed it pursuant to a ruling by this Court. On December 5, 2024, the People served and filed another supplemental certificate of compliance, disclosing video footage taken of defense counsel opening and inspecting vouchered property. This footage did not exist when the People first certified compliance. On December 11, 2024, the People served and filed another supplemental certificate of compliance, disclosing a 911 call, sprint report, and radio run, and stating that the People believed these items had previously been disclosed but learned that they were not actually disclosed due to an inadvertent error.

On February 6, 2025, the hearing was completed and the defendant filed the instant motion. The case was adjourned to March 28, 2025 for decision on the suppression hearings and this motion. This adjournment is excluded pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).

0 chargeable days.

On March 28, 2025, the Court issued its decision on the suppression hearings and began conducting an inquiry to resolve the factual issues raised by the parties' written submissions. The case was adjourned to April 4, 2025 to continue the inquiry, and then to May 29, 2025 for decision on the defendant's challenge to the People's certificate of compliance. This adjournment is excluded pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(4)(a).

0 chargeable days.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that 94 chargeable days have elapsed. The People have not exceeded their statutory time limit under C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(a), and so the defendant's [*9]motion to dismiss is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.