Summary of the Court's Decision: Defendant's motion to invalidate the People's original certificate of compliance is denied.

The Defendant, Nestor Antunez, filed an omnibus motion, dated March 11, 2025, seeking various forms of relief including dismissal of the indictment and invalidation of the People's original certificate of compliance. The People's response, dated April 24, 2025, urged this Court to deny the requested relief. In a Decision and Order dated May 27, 2025, this Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and ordered a hearing to determine the motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance.^[FN1] Pursuant to that Decision and Order, this Court conducted a discovery hearing on June 25, 2025.

The Defendant has moved to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance (which was served and filed on January 3, 2025) because he argues that there were seven categories of discovery which were in dispute at the time the People filed their original certificate of compliance: 1) the grand jury minutes; 2) contact information for three non-law enforcement witnesses; 3) photographs taken by police officers; 4) certain New York City Police Department (NYPD) paperwork; 5) detective DD5s; 6) body-worn camera video for a home visit from August 25, 2024; and 7) disciplinary records for law enforcement officers. The Court will now address each area in dispute:

The Defendant argues that the People's failure to disclose the grand jury minutes before [*2]filing their original certificate of compliance should render it invalid. In response, the People indicate that they were not in possession of the grand jury minutes at the time they filed their original certificate of compliance and that they noted that the grand jury minutes were outstanding in their original certificate of compliance. On March 6, 2025, defense counsel e-mailed to inquire about the status of the grand jury minutes. In response, the assigned Assistant District Attorney (ADA) contacted the supervising grand jury reporter to follow up on her previous request for the grand jury minutes. Later that same day, the grand jury minutes became available to the ADA and were disclosed to the Defendant along with a supplemental certificate of compliance.

The Defendant argues that the People's failure to provide contact information for three non-law enforcement witnesses — Juan (an interpreter), Luis Encalada (the complainant's father), and L. (the Defendant's son) — whose names appear in discovery materials should invalidate the People's certificate of compliance. In response, the People contend that they do not have to provide contact information for Juan, a LanguageLine telephone interpreter, because he does not have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense. As to Luis Encalada, the People state that they did turn over contact information for this witness (who they contend is named Carlos Encalada) with their original certificate of compliance. Finally, the People state that they did provide adequate contact information for complainant L., who is the Defendant's son, in their original certificate of compliance.

At the discovery hearing, the Defendant argued that contact information for Juan, the LanguageLine Spanish interpreter, was relevant because in defense counsel's experience, interpreters take notes regarding what they must translate and that those notes would be proof of what was actually said to the interpreter by witnesses. During the discovery hearing, the Defendant withdrew the prong of the motion seeking to invalidate the People's original certificate of compliance based upon contact information for the Defendant's son.

The Defendant argues that the People's failure to disclose photographs which were taken by police officers while they were at the scene of the crime should invalidate their original certificate of compliance. These photographs were discovered by defense counsel when she viewed the body worn camera videos of Police Officers Qu, Bruno, and Valentin. These body-worn camera videos revealed that Officer Qu took a photograph of the complainant's identification; Officer Bruno took a photograph of the Defendant's identification; and Officer Valentin took photographs of both the complainant's and Defendant's identifications. In their response, the People argue that these photographs contain pedigree information and contend that they would not be discoverable as statements. However, the People nevertheless contacted Police Officers Bruno and Valentin and received the photographs taken by those officers. They were then disclosed to the defense, along with a supplemental certificate of compliance, on April 23, 2025. In addition, the People made two phone calls and left one voicemail for Officer Qu on April 22, 2025. The People indicate that the photograph that Officer Valentin took was of the complainant's identification and that Officer Qu's photograph of the same identification card would be redundant.

At the discovery hearing, the Defendant withdrew the prong of the motion seeking to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance for failing to disclose photographs of the Defendant's identification.

The Defendant further argues that the People's failure to disclose NYPD paperwork, to wit: a) family protection registry information sheet; b) arrest to arraignment monitor; c) pre-arraignment notification report; d) court verification / arraignment card; e) roll call log; f) interrupted patrol log; and g) prisoner holding pen roster, should invalidate their original certificate of compliance. In their response, the People argue that this Court has previously held that all of the above-mentioned paperwork (with the exception of the family protection registry information sheet) does not relate to the subject matter of the case and therefore need not be disclosed [see People v Arbaszewski, 85 Misc 3d 1218(A) (Sup Ct, Qns Cty 2025)]. The People argue that the family protection registry information sheet contains no information about the subject matter of this case and only contains pedigree information for the Defendant and family members who are protected by an order of protection.

At the discovery hearing, the Court informed both parties that the family protection information sheet was part of the court's file and was generated for the arraignment judge. The Court read parts of the family protection information sheet into the record and then indicated that this document was generated for the arraignment judge only, contained confidential information about other parties not related to this case, and would most likely never be in the People's possession.

As to the arrest to arraignment monitor, the People indicate that this document contains a list of times which track how the case is handled by the Queens County District Attorney's Office's Intake Bureau from arrest until arraignment. The People indicate that this document is sometimes generated by the Intake Bureau but that such a document was not generated for this case and therefore could not be disclosed.

As to the pre-arraignment notification report, the Defendant argued that he was entitled to this report under CPL §245.20(1)(e) because it might contain statements about the case. However, the defense was unable to describe what this form looked like or whether one was created in connection with this case. The ADA indicated that, based upon her investigation, a pre-arraignment notification report was not generated in connection with this case.

As to the court verification / arraignment card, the ADA indicated that she had never seen such a card in connection with this or any case. The Court then handed a copy of the court verification / arraignment card from the arraignment packet in the court file to the parties so that they could inspect it. The ADA stated that it was the first time she had ever seen that document in connection with this case. Following the discovery hearing, the ADA requested and received a copy of the court verification / arraignment card from Queens County District Attorney employees who work in the arraignment part. The People disclosed the court verification / arraignment card to the Defendant on July 15, 2025 and filed a supplemental certificate of compliance on the same date.

The court verification / arraignment card for this case has a "narrative" portion as follows:

CV states perp (husband) punched CV in the face, and bit her left side face and upper lip causing bleeding and bruising. CV further states perp also used two hands around CV's neck and choked her causing her to lose consciousness for a few seconds.

After the conclusion of the discovery hearing, the Court's staff asked the People to determine how that narrative portion of the form was generated. In other words, was that section typed by a law enforcement officer or was it automatically generated from another police department form? The People responded, in an e-mail dated July 16, 2025, that the narrative section of the [*3]court verification / arraignment card is taken directly from the arrest report. The People attached a copy of the arrest report for this case to their e-mail and that arrest report demonstrated that the arrest narrative was identical on both forms.

As to the roll call log, the People argued that their original certificate of compliance provided the names and work affiliations of all law enforcement officers who had evidence or information relevant to the offenses charged. The Defendant argued that a roll call log was a document created by the NYPD and, as such, should automatically be discoverable.

As to the interrupted patrol log, the ADA indicated that she had never seen such a document and was unaware of what it was. Defense counsel indicated that it was a log prepared by the NYPD which showed which other police officers were present when the Defendant was being processed and searched at the precinct.

As to the prisoner holding pen roster, at the discovery hearing defense counsel indicated that the prisoner holding pen roster would show all of the police officers who checked on the Defendant while he was in custody.

The Defendant further argues that the People's failure to disclose any DD5s in connection with this case should render their original certificate of compliance invalid. The People contend that there were no DD5s linked to the arrest number for this case at the time they filed their original certificate of compliance and, therefore, it was not apparent that there were any DD5s, nor did the People have any such DD5s in their possession at the time they filed their original certificate of compliance. After reviewing the Defendant's motion, the People contacted the 102nd Precinct's Domestic Violence Unit on April 22, 2025, and requested all DD5s created in connection with this case. The People received two sets of DD5s which were regarding an unsuccessful home visit ^[FN2] and disclosed them, along with a supplemental certificate of compliance, on the next day, April 23, 2025.

The Defendant contends that the People's failure to disclose body-worn camera video from a home visit conducted on August 25, 2024 should render their original certificate of compliance invalid. In response, the People indicate that, because the home visit was unsuccessful, any body-worn camera videos related to that home visit, should they even exist, would not contain statements made by a person who had evidence or information regarding any offense charged or any defense thereto. At the discovery hearing, defense counsel argued that the body-worn camera video from the unsuccessful home visit could potentially contain interviews with relatives or neighbors. However, defense counsel conceded that she had been provided with DD5s for that home visit which did not indicate that any contact was made with relatives or neighbors.

The Defendant argues that the People's failure to provide all underlying disciplinary records and unredacted disciplinary records should render their original certificate of compliance invalid. However, at the discovery hearing, the Defendant withdrew this prong of his motion to invalidate the People's original certificate of compliance because defense counsel had since learned that none of the law enforcement witnesses that the defense was seeking additional disciplinary records for were witnesses to any of the crimes charged.

CPL §245.20(1) requires the People 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". The People must disclose this initial automatic discovery within twenty calendar days of the Defendant's arraignment where the defendant is in custody (CPL §245.10[1][a][i]) unless the discoverable materials are "exceptionally voluminous or, despite diligent, good faith efforts, are otherwise not in the actual possession of the prosecution," in which case an extension may be granted pursuant to CPL §245.70 (CPL §245.10[1][b]). Furthermore, pursuant to CPL §245.60, both the People and the Defendant have a continuing duty to disclose "additional material or information which it would have been under a duty to disclose pursuant to any provisions of this article had it known of it at the time of a previous discovery obligation or discovery order".

The Court first notes that the most recent amendments to New York's discovery laws contained in CPL article 245, which come into effect on August 7, 2025, would have solved all of the discovery disputes in this case without the need for motion practice and a hearing. When filing a challenge to the People's certificate of compliance, the newly amended CPL §245.50(4)(c) requires the defense to file an affirmation indicating that the parties timely conferred in good faith, that the conferring was regarding the specific and particularized matters that form the basis for the challenge, that efforts to resolve the discovery disputes were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached.

Here, the sheer refusal to diligently confer with the People and instead file a motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance wasted time — the Court's time, the Defendant's time, and the People's time. Simple, clear conversations that were held during the discovery hearing resolved the majority of discovery disputes before this Court. For example, the Defendant discovered that the People had, in fact, disclosed contact information for the Defendant's father and that there was clearly no need for the People to provide a contact number for the Defendant's young child. Furthermore, the defense withdrew several prongs of their motion after simple discussions with the ADA on the record. For example, the Defendant withdrew the prong of the motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance based upon disciplinary records for police officers who had not witnessed any portion of the charged incident. The Defendant also withdrew another prong of the motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance based upon a duplicative photograph of the Defendant's own identification which had already been returned to him by the police. These matters could have been easily resolved by a simple phone call lasting less than five minutes instead of immediately turning to litigation or trying to preserve a theoretical appellate issue.

Turning to the prongs of the Defendant's motion which were not withdrawn, "whether the People made reasonable efforts to satisfy CPL article 245 is fundamentally case-specific, as with any question of reasonableness, and will turn on the circumstances presented" (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]). "Although the statute nowhere defines 'due diligence,' it is a familiar and flexible standard that requires the People 'to make reasonable efforts' to comply with statutory directives (id. quoting People v Bolden, 81 NY2d 146, 155 [1993]).... Although the relevant factors for assessing due diligence may vary from case to case, the courts should generally consider, among other things, 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 complexity of the case, how obvious any missing material might have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People's response [*4]when apprised of missing discovery" (Bay at 212).

The Court has considered the factors that the Court of Appeals listed in Bay and finds that the People have exercised due diligence in providing discovery for this case. First, considerable efforts have been made by the People to generate the discovery they are obligated to turn over in this and every case. For example, the Queens County District Attorney's Office has established a Discovery Compliance Unit to coordinate with law enforcement agencies in an effort to streamline both interagency communication and the exchange of discoverable information. Additionally, the Queens County District Attorney's Office has also established a Law Enforcement Officer Witness Unit to obtain disciplinary information for their witnesses as well as a Forensic Science Unit to obtain scientific and forensic evidence that may exist in any case. Finally, the Queens County District Attorney's Office has also embedded paralegal discovery liaisons in many of its bureaus, whose duties and responsibilities include interacting with various law enforcement agencies in an effort to oversee discovery compliance and to troubleshoot any outstanding discovery issues. The creation of these additional units and allocation of resources to generally address their discovery obligations under CPL Article 245 support a finding of due diligence on the part of the Queens County District Attorney's Office in fulfillment of their discovery obligation in this case.

Second, in comparing the amount of discovery turned over to the amount of discovery outstanding, it is clear that the People have exercised due diligence. It is not in dispute that the People have turned over voluminous discovery, including approximately 100 files, which contained hundreds of pages of material and attachments including eight body-worn camera videos, five 911 calls, and the complainant's medical records. In contrast, the outstanding discovery which actually related to the subject matter of the case at the time the People filed their certificate of compliance consisted of the grand jury minutes.^[FN3] It is self-evident that the comparison of the discovery turned over to the outstanding discovery supports a finding of due diligence on the part of the Queens County District Attorney's Office in fulfillment of their discovery obligation in this case.

Third, in analyzing the complexity of this case, all indications provided to this Court are that this is not a complex case. The Defendant was apprehended at the scene of the crime and there is only one incident date.

Fourth, it appears to this Court that the only discoverable material related to the subject matter of the case that the People had not disclosed at the time they filed their original certificate of compliance was the grand jury minutes. In their certificate of compliance, the People identified that they knew that the grand jury minutes existed, that they had not yet been transcribed, and that they would be disclosed to the Defendant as soon as they were in the People's custody (see People v Drayton, 231 AD3d 1057 [2d Dept 2024]). The fact that the People only missed one item that actually related to the subject matter of the case supports a finding of due diligence on the part of the Queens County District Attorney's Office in fulfillment of their discovery obligation in this case.

Fifth, the People's explanations for the alleged discovery errors are reasonable. At the time they filed their original certificate of compliance, the People knew that they needed to obtain and disclose the grand jury minutes as part of automatic discovery. Furthermore, in response to the Defendant's motion, the People requested all DD5s created in relation to this case and obtained DD5s which had been generated and associated with this Defendant's arrest number after the People filed their original certificate of compliance. The People obtained those DD5s and promptly disclosed them to the Defendant along with a supplemental certificate of compliance.

Turning to the other items and documents which the Defendant has requested and has made part of his motion to invalidate the People's original certificate of compliance, the Court finds that those documents are not related to the subject matter of the case and are, therefore, not part of automatic discovery under CPL §245.20.

The People are not required, by statute or by any case law, to provide the full name and contact information for the telephonic LanguageLine interpreter used by the NYPD in this case. The Defendant speculates without any offer of proof that the interpreter must have taken notes while translating. In addition, the translation to which the Defendant refers to is memorialized in the actual 911 call itself. The People disclosed that 911 call to the Defendant as part of automatic discovery. As such, the Defendant has the actual words that were said to the 911 operator and is free to have an expert verify the accuracy of the interpretation. However, any notes taken by the interpreter (should they even exist) would be irrelevant because the actual voice and words of the 911 caller were preserved and disclosed to the Defendant.

A photograph of the complainant's identification taken by Police Officer Qu is not relevant to the subject matter of this case. This photograph was taken in order to obtain the complainant's pedigree information for NYPD record keeping. This photograph was taken well after the crime was completed and well after the Defendant had been taken in custody. In addition, the People state that they were unaware that this photograph of the complainant's identification was taken. The Court finds it reasonable for the People to have requested all photographs from the law enforcement officers who were at the crime scene and then disclosed those photographs to the Defendant. It is not reasonable to expect the assigned ADA to watch all of the body-worn camera videos disclosed in this case from start to finish at this stage of the proceedings in an effort to double-check that there were not additional photographs taken (Arbaszewski, supra).

As to the family protection information sheet, the Court finds that this document was not in the People's custody and control as it is a court document which is generated by court clerks for the arraignment judge. This document contains confidential information about orders of protection and is not subject to automatic discovery under CPL §245.20.

The court verification / arraignment card is also not relevant to the subject matter of the case. This document, which is prepared by the NYPD in order to verify that the correct individual is being arraigned in the arraignment part, does not have any new information which is entered by a law enforcement witness. It is simply a document which is part of the mechanical operation of the criminal justice system and is not related to the subject matter of the case. As clarified after the discovery hearing, the "narrative" portion of the court verification / arraignment card is automatically generated from the narrative which the arresting officer had entered into the arrest report — which is part of automatic discovery in this and every case.

As to the roll call log, the court finds that this document is not related to the subject matter of the case and simply an NYPD document related to record keeping as to which officers [*5]worked each shift. In their original certificate of compliance, the People delineated the names and work affiliations of all of the law enforcement witnesses who had information relevant to the charges on this indictment.

As to the interrupted patrol log, the People indicate that no such document was created for this case.

As to the prisoner holding pen roster, the court finds that this document is not related to the subject matter of the case and simply an NYPD document related to ensuring the safe custody of the Defendant while he was at the precinct. Again, this document is administrative and is part of the mechanical operation of the criminal justice system. It is not related to the subject matter of the crimes on the indictment.

A fascinating portion of the discovery hearing in this case involved the discussion surrounding the assortment of objectively irrelevant NYPD paperwork ^[FN4] that has been repeatedly requested by defense counsel in this case (Arbaszewski, supra). When asked what the basis of the request was, defense counsel directed the Court to CPL §245.20(1)(e), which requires automatic discovery of:

[a]ll 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

(CPL §245.20[1][e]). While the statute does make reference to "all statements" and "all police reports", these references are qualified by the additional language that such statements and/or police reports be made by individuals "who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto". For these particular documents there was not even an attempt — either by motion or during the discovery hearing in this case — to articulate how any of these documents fit this statutory definition. During the discovery hearing, the only justification provided by the defense for why these documents fell under the People's automatic discovery obligations was that "they were reports generated by the NYPD." While that is not even actually true for the family protection registry information sheet, it also is not what the law requires.^[FN5] While it certainly could be the case that the Defendant may obtain a good faith basis [*6]to believe that some or all of these documents fit the CPL §245.20(1)(e) definition in a particular case, and the People must also stay vigilant to that possibility, the continuing request of these specific documents — especially in light of the lack of conferral — strikes this Court as disingenuous at worst; at best, it is a creative writing assignment which strays far from the intended benefit of CPL article 245.

Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law was an attempt by the Legislature to get all relevant discovery that relates to the subject matter of a case into the Defendant's and defense counsel's possession at the front-end of the case in the hopes that all Defendants and their attorneys will be able to have informed conversations about whether to exercise their right to have a jury trial or not, and if so, then to meaningfully prepare for that trial much earlier than was ever possible under the previous discovery structure found in the former CPL article 240. Unfortunately, repeated requests for documents that had never been discoverable, and are still not discoverable under CPL article 245, only dilutes any meaningful discovery arguments the Defendant might make and wastes valuable (and limited) resources of all parties involved.

As to the body-worn camera videos from the unsuccessful home visit, the Court finds that those videos are not related to the subject matter of the case. Although the Defendant speculated that the law enforcement officers who attempted that home visit might have had contact with the complainant's relatives or neighbors and had conversations about this case with them, defense counsel conceded that she was in possession of DD5s related to this home visit and that those DD5s did not reflect that any such conversations or contacts were made. As such, any body-worn camera videos from this unsuccessful home visit (should they even exist) are not related to the subject matter of the case.^[FN6] Under the totality of the circumstances before this Court, the facts presented show that the People's explanation for how they responded to their discovery obligation support a finding of due diligence on the part of the Queens County District Attorney's Office in fulfillment of their discovery obligation in this case.

Finally, the response by the People when they learned of the missing grand jury minutes and unsuccessful home visit DD5s was reasonable. The People had identified that the grand jury minutes were outstanding prior to filing their certificate of compliance, and they put the Defendant on notice that they were making efforts to obtain them. As soon as the People received the grand jury minutes, they were disclosed to the Defendant. As to the DD5s which were generated after the unsuccessful home visit, the People were not in possession of these at the time they filed their original certificate of compliance because there was no indication that they were linked to the arrest number for this case and therefore could not be identified through the normal method of conducting a search. However, in response to Defendant's motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance, the ADA contacted the 102nd Precinct's Domestic Violence Unit and requested all DD5s created in connection with this case. The NYPD then sent the ADA the additional DD5s related to unsuccessful home visit, and the ADA disclosed them to the Defendant the next day along with a supplemental certificate of compliance. The People's proactive search for any DD5s related to the case which they did not [*7]have at the time they filed their original certificate of compliance supports a finding of due diligence on the part of the Queens County District Attorney's Office in fulfillment of their discovery obligation in this case.

In total, the People have exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to both identify and disclose mandatory discovery prior to filing their certificate of compliance in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance, deem their statement of readiness illusory, and to dismiss the indictment due to a violation of his right to a speedy trial is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.