The defendant, Jerome Jackson, is charged with Assault in the First Degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [2]), Attempted Assault in the First Degree (Penal Law §§ 110/120.10 [1], and Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law§ 120.05[2]).

In papers dated July 18, 2025, the defendant moves for an order invalidating the People's certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50. Alternatively, the defendant seeks a remedy or sanction of preclusion pursuant to CPL § 245.80. Relatedly, the defendant also seeks an order dismissing the indictment pursuant to CPL § 30.30(1)(a). The People served and filed opposition papers on July 25, 2025. The defendant served reply papers on August 5, 2025.

The People allege that on August 25, 2024, outside of Bland Houses, located at 133-40 Roosevelt Avenue, the defendant slashed the complainant on her forehead with a knife. The complainant sustained a laceration to her forehead that required treatment at a hospital. The People allege further that as a result of the defendant's actions, the complainant sustained a disfiguring scar on her forehead.

This is the second defense motion to challenge the original certificate of compliance filed on November 22, 2024, based on the People's alleged failure, among other discovery claims, to [*2]disclose the names and contact information of two EMS paramedics that responded to the scene of the alleged assault and rendered aid to the complainant. Following the denial by Judge Diaz of the defendant's first motion to invalidate the People's certificate, the People subsequently served three supplemental COCs on July 7, 2025, July 9, 2025, and July 15, 2025 that are the subject of the defendant's current motion.^[FN1] The defendant's current motion alleges the People belatedly added the two EMS paramedics to their witness list without previously disclosing their names and contact information. This decision therefore reviews the full factual and procedural history as relevant to decide the defendant's current motion as to this issue. The defendant's current motion also alleges the People failed to disclose on their witness list the names and contact information for representatives from the NY DMV and NYCHA, a medical doctor listed as an expert witness and that witness' related information required by CPL § 245.20(1)(f). The defendant also contends the People's belated disclosure of the defendant's DMV registration abstract and three photographs taken on August 25, 2024, the date of the alleged assault, by one of the responding detectives, invalidates the People's COC.

The People's supplemental COC of July 7, 2025, disclosed as potential witnesses the names of the responding EMS paramedics along with the disclosure that a doctor that treated the complainant would be called as an expert witness to explain the wounds sustained and the treatment rendered to the complainant.

In the defendant's first motion to invalidate the People's certificate, the defendant alleged the People failed to disclose and share the names and contact information of the EMS personnel who arrived at the scene and provided treatment to the complainant. (affirmation of defendant's attorney, ¶ 47 dated January 22, 2025.

In answer to this claim, the prosecutor in his response papers stated that " . . . the names and contact information of the two EMS [paramedics] who responded to the scene and rendered aid to the complainant are contained in the previously shared medical records of the complainant. They are employees of the New York Presbyterian Hospital's Ambulance/EMT Department." (affirmation of prosecutor at 68, dated February 6, 2025.) Judge Diaz in his written decision of March 4, 2025, found the People's disclosure was sufficient pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1)(c) and declined to invalidate the People's certificate on that or any other ground raised by the defendant in his first motion. To the extent defendant is seeking to re-litigate and reverse a pre-trial ruling by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, his motion is denied. The law of the case doctrine applies in this circumstance where the defendant fully litigated the issue before the motion court.

The defendant also moves to invalidate the People's certificate on the basis that the People belatedly added to their witness list the names of these two paramedics, the DMV and NYCHA representatives without their names and contact information, a doctor who the People intend to call as an expert witness, the defendant's certified DMV registration abstract and three photographs taken by Detective Ferlin that were not disclosed before the People filed their certificate on November 22, 2024.

Turning first to the expert witness, the People in their response papers have indicated they will not call the doctor from New York Presbyterian Hospital as an expert witness. [*3]Accordingly, the defendant's motion to invalidate the People's certificate on this ground is denied as moot.

Next, the People explain that the trial prosecutor was aware that the defendant left the scene of the assault in a car for which a description had been provided. However, without the plate number of the car, the registered owner could not be determined. (affirmation of prosecutor at 7) During trial preparations, Detective Caputo, the case investigator, was interviewed again and mentioned that the defendant may own a car similar in description to that of the car that the defendant was seen in when he left the scene. At the direction of the trial prosecutor, Detective Caputo investigated the issue further and learned that the vehicle the defendant was seen leaving the scene in matched his DMV registration records. The People thereafter requested from DMV the defendant's certified registration abstract. (People's Memo of Law at 30) Upon receiving the defendant's certified DMV records, the People immediately disclosed the defendant's DMV registration abstract and the fact that a DMV representative would testify by filing a supplemental COC on July 9, 2025. The People explained further that DMV will not provide the name of the testifying DMV representative until a date for their appearance in court is established. (People's Memo of Law at 31)

As for the NYCHA witness, the People explain that after the grand jury testimony of the complainant, the People received video surveillance from Bland Houses. Because of the poor quality of the video footage, the trial prosecutor decided to not use the video at trial. Consequentially he did not include a NYCHA representative on the witness list in order to authenticate the video. However, during trial preparation, the complainant was again interviewed and shown the video. The complainant, who was familiar with the Bland Houses area, was able to identify activity captured on the video despite its blurred and grainy quality. (affirmation of prosecutor at 31)

The People concede they did not disclose the three photographs taken by Detective Ferlin when they filed their certificate of compliance on November 22, 2024. However, they contend they acted in good faith and exercised due diligence as evidenced by the extensive discovery initially provided. The People explain that despite requesting all relevant material from Detective Ferlin prior to and after filing their certificate, she overlooked three photographs that she took that were stored in her NYPD mobile phone. During trial preparation on July 15, 2025, Detective Ferlin searched her NYPD mobile phone and found three photographs she had saved. That same day, the assigned prosecutor disclosed the three photographs with the defendant by filing a supplemental COC.

As for the two EMS paramedics the People added to their witness list when they filed their supplemental COC on July 7, 2025, the People explain that they "reaffirmed" the names and contact information that were previously disclosed to the defendant in the Ambulance Call Report and the defendant had actual notice that these individuals may be called as witnesses. (affirmation of prosecutor at 6, Memo of Law at 30-31)

The fact that the trial prosecutor first learned about new, discoverable information from several witnesses who were known to the People after they filed their COC does not, standing alone, constitute a lack of due diligence. During trial preparation, it is not unusual or surprising that, in some cases, witnesses may recall after multiple interviews discoverable information. Indeed, the discovery statute recognizes that during the course of a criminal prosecution, "either the prosecution of the defendant [may] subsequently learn [ ] of additional material or information which it would have been under a duty to disclose pursuant to any provisions of this [*4]article had it known of it at the time of a previous discovery obligation or discovery order". (CPL § 245.60) CPL § 245.60 also imposes the duty to expeditiously notify the defense and disclose the additional material and information as required for initial discovery under this article. Here, the relevance of the defendant's DMV registration abstract and the DMV and NYCHA representatives were not known to the prosecution prior to filing their COC.

The People appear objectively to have acted reasonably respecting their decision to add two addition witnesses, the DMV and NYCHA representatives, based on new information gleaned from the debriefings of Detective Caputo and the complainant. The recognition of the relevance of the defendant's DMV registration abstract and the NYCHA video surveillance footage and the addition of these two witnesses reflect the practical realities of an ongoing process of information gathering during a criminal prosecution. The DMV and NYCHA representatives will not be testifying to the particular circumstances surrounding the alleged assault or the events leading to the defendant's arrest. Rather, the People represent that the DMV representative is expected to testify to the DMV's business practices as it relate to the various records it keeps. The NYCHA representative is expected to testify that the video equipment on which the relevant video footage was recorded was in good working order and accurate as to date and time and the contents were not altered from the original recording.

As to the identity of the DMV representative, the court credits the People's representation that the DMV will not disclose the name of the representative who will testify until a date is set for that person to appear in court. The court knows from its own experience not only that it is DMV's practice, but is also knows it to be the practice of many other public and private entities that provide witnesses to authenticate video and audio recordings or to establish an entity's business practices.

The People's discovery obligations are ongoing and should the prosecution learn of additional material or information that it would have been required to disclose pursuant to CPL § 245.20, "it shall expeditiously notify the other party and disclose the additional material and information as required for initial discovery under this article." (CPL § 245.60.) Moreover, if the People provide additional discovery in connection with their ongoing obligations outlined in CPL § 245.60, they must file a supplemental certificate "identifying the additional material and information provided." (CPL § 245.50[1].) Notably, the statute also specifies the "supplemental certificate of compliance shall detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that a court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance." (CPL §245.50[1-a].) At the same time, the statute also provides that "No adverse consequence to the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances; but the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as provided in section 245.80 of this article." (CPL 245.50[1].)

Thus, this court finds no basis to invalidate the People's COC on the ground the People failed to identify the DMV and NYCHA representatives who will testify at trial or their decision to add these witnesses to the People's list. Accordingly, this court finds the material provided by the People in their supplemental certificate of compliance of July 9, 2025, namely the defendant's certified DMV registration abstract and the disclosure of two additional witness to their witness list, the DMV and NYCHA representatives, was proper and in compliance with the procedures set forth in CPL §§ 245.60 and 245.50(1-a).

As for the belated disclosure of the three photographs and the late decision to add the two EMS paramedics to the People's witness list, the "key question in determining if a proper COC [*5]has been filed is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquires to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery." People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023) Due diligence, in this regard, is a "flexible standard that requires the People to make reasonable efforts to comply with statutorily directives." Bay at 41 NY3d at 211. In Bay, the Court recognized that the factors relevant to assess due diligence may vary from case to case but generally courts should consider, among other things, (1) the efforts made by the prosecution to comply with the statutorily required automatic discovery requirements; (2) the volume of discovery provided and outstanding; (3) the complexity of the case; (4) how obvious the missing material and information would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence; (5) the explanation for any discovery lapse; and (6) the response by the People when apprised of any missing discovery. Id at 212. In assessing these factors, courts should undertake a "holistic assessment of the People's efforts to comply with the automatic discovery provisions rather than focus on an item-by-item analysis. (See e.g., People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 [4th Dept 2024]; People v Williams, 224 AD3d 998, 1006-07 [3d Dept 2024]) Moreover, certain delays or discovery issues should not invalidate a COC that was made in good faith, after the exercise of due diligence and efforts made by the prosecution to comply with statutory obligations. Bay at 210-213.

Here, the record made by the People demonstrates they acted with due diligence and made reasonable inquires to provide the defendant with all known discovery as evidenced by the extensive discovery provided to the defendant with the initial certificate of compliance. As a general matter, the People have established a discovery compliance unit tasked with communicating with outside agencies to identify, request and acquire discovery materials created by those agencies. The People have also established a law enforcement witness unit responsible for obtaining potential impeachment material against law enforcement officers. In addition, the People have a forensic science unit that works closely with the OCME and NYPD laboratories to identify, obtain and analyze discovery related to DNA testing, and firearm and controlled substances. Specifically, in this case the People have made significant efforts to obtain and disclose discovery, consisting of over 180 files, including, among many others, medical and police records, a police interview video, a CCTV video, the names and work affiliations of over 25 law enforcement personnel, activity logs, video footage from body-worn cameras and associated metadata, LEOW disciplinary records, sprint reports, 911 calls, radio runs, DD5s, arrest paperwork, a wanted flyer and photographs of the scene. In considering the Bay factors and applying a holistic assessment to the efforts made by the People to comply with their automatic discovery obligations, this court finds the People's belated disclosure and late addition of the two EMS paramedics to their witness list reasonable under the circumstances. Thus, this court finds the belated disclosure in the July 7th and 15th supplemental COCs of the two EMS paramedics as witnesses and the three photographs was made in good faith and with due diligence.

Nevertheless, while the court finds the addition of two EMS paramedics to the People's witness list was made in good faith and with due diligence, the belated disclosure of these witnesses fourteen days before the scheduled trial date is more troubling. In this regard, the invalidation of a certificate of compliance is not the only relief available to a defendant. The discovery law states: "No adverse consequence to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances; but the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as [*6]provided in section 245.80 of this article." (CPL § 245.50[1].) In other words, even where a certificate is made in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances and, thus, proper, a discovery violation that does not render the entire certificate invalid may still warrant sanctions. CPL § 245.80 provides: "When material or information is discoverable under this article but is disclosed belatedly, the court shall impose an appropriate remedy or sanction if the party entitled to disclosure shows that it was prejudiced." In imposing sanctions, the statute explains, the court may "make a further order for discovery, grant a continuance, order that a hearing be reopened, order that a witness be called or recalled, instruct the jury that it may draw an adverse inference regarding the non-compliance, preclude or strike a witness's testimony or a portion of a witness's testimony, admit or exclude evidence, order a mistrial, order the dismissal of all or some of the charges, or make such other order as it deems just under the circumstances." (CPL § 245.80.)

Here, the People had ample opportunity to add the EMS witnesses to their witness list well before scheduled trial date. Instead, the trial prosecutor waited until two weeks before the scheduled trial date to make the disclosure without providing a valid reason that explained the delay in disclosure as he did with the DMV and NYCHA representatives. One of the purposes of the new discovery law is to avoid trial by ambush, but this is exactly the effect of the People's late disclosure has on the defendant. Under these circumstances, this court must conclude that the defendant experienced prejudice as a result of the People's delay in disclosing the EMS paramedics as witnesses. Because the People did not, and regardless of the excusable time under CPL § 30.30, the practical effect of this late disclosure of discovery is that the defendant's trial is delayed still further. To mitigate this prejudice, this court finds that a sanction against the People is appropriate. This court, therefore, precludes the People from calling as witnesses the two EMS paramedics as witnesses on their case in chief.

Relatedly, because the defendant's CPL § 30.30 motion relies on the premise that certain periods are chargeable to the People because their certificate of compliance was improper, the court also denies that motion.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

The Clerk of the court is directed to distribute copies of this decision and order to the attorney for the defendant and to the District Attorney.