The defendant moves to invalidate the People's initial certificate of compliance (COC), and statement of readiness (SOR), dated July 24, 2024, as well as the People's supplemental COCs and SORs dated August 1, 2024, April 7, 2025, May 12, 2025, August 1, 2025, and September 8, 2025. The defendant also moves for reconsideration and reargument of the denial of a motion to controvert search warrants. Additionally, the defendant moves for a hearing to determine the reason for the denial of a February 9, 2024, search warrant application.

The People oppose the motion.

For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is DENIED, in its entirety.

The thirty-one-count indictment charges the defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and other related charges, stemming from the recovery of evidence pursuant to the execution of search warrants, and the search of the defendant's apartment. On March 5, 2024, the police executed a search warrant on a 2018 Honda Odyssey. During the search, the police recovered, among other things, a .40 caliber pistol loaded with nine rounds of ammunition, 19 rounds of .38 caliber ammunition, 455 fentanyl pills, and multiple cell phones. On March 6, 2024, the police executed a search warrant for four separate garages located on Kings Highway, in Kings County. During the search, the police recovered, among other things: a 357 Magnum revolver loaded with eight rounds of ammunition, and various plastic bags containing 350 rounds S&W PMC 40 caliber ammunition, 200 rounds of 9mm ammunition, 50 rounds of Winchester Super X 357 caliber ammunition, 45 rounds of Winchester Subsonic 9mm ammunition, 40 rounds of S&W Mag Tech 40 caliber ammunition, 37 rounds of Remington 38 caliber ammunition, 25 rounds of PMC Bronze 380 caliber ammunition, and 25 rounds of Hornady 357 caliber ammunition. The police also recovered an air rifle with a magazine and $20,856, 245 MDMA pills, 123 Adderall pills, 75 Oxycodone pills, 4 Xanax pills, [*2]bags of cocaine, and other unidentified pills and unidentified white powder. On March 6, 2024, the police executed a search warrant on a 2009 Orange Hyundai and recovered one plastic twist of cocaine and multiple documents with the defendant's name. Additionally, on March 7, 2024, the police searched the defendant's apartment and recovered a Smith and Wesson 22 Long Rifle with a ranged scope affixed to it, a Ruger 380 pistol loaded with seven rounds of ammunition, a Smith and Wesson 38 Special revolver loaded with two rounds of ammunition, and three empty shell casings in the cylinder of the revolver. The police also recovered 51 rounds of .38 caliber ammunition and a loaded Byrna gun.

On April 11, 2024, the defendant was arraigned in Supreme Court.

On June 3, 2024, the People served and filed a Notice and Disclosure Form for Initial Discovery, and provided hundreds of pages of NYPD paperwork consisting of dozens of vouchers for the recovered firearms, controlled substances, cellphones and money; photographs of the property recovered from the vehicles, garages, and apartment; memobooks of the police officers; 32 police officers' body-worn cameras; three separate Evidence Collection Team files; documentation of the NYPD laboratory testing of the recovered firearms and controlled substances; resumes and proficiency testing summaries of the NYPD firearms analysts and criminalists; grand jury minutes and exhibits; and Giglio disclosure letters.^[FN1] On July 17, 2024, the People served additional discovery consisting of DD5s along with the attachments, DEA investigation reports, K9 paperwork, 5 police officers' body-worn cameras, as well as Search Warrant #306-2024 (2018 Honda Odyssey), and its application which was issued on March 2, 2024, by the Honorable Joshua Glick, and Search Warrant #332-2024 (Garage Units #5, #38, #41 and #42, and the 2009 Orange Hyundai), and its application, which was issued on March 6, 2024, by the Honorable Simiyon Haniff.^[FN2] The search applications contained redactions for which the People did not obtain a protective order.

On July 24, 2024, the People filed a COC, with an inventory of the items that had been previously disclosed on June 3, 2024, and July 17, 2024, as well as an SOR.

On July 22, 2025, the defendant filed a motion to controvert Search Warrants #306-2024 and #332-2024, and to suppress evidence. In doing so, the defendant asserted that the People had failed to disclose documents for a 2020 dismissed case against the defendant, as well as the denial of a February 9, 2024, search warrant application. The defendant now argues that the People's failure to disclose those materials renders the People's COCs invalid.

On August 7, 2025, amendments to the discovery law took effect, and as provided by the enacted bill, this Court must apply those amendments "to all criminal actions pending on such date and all actions commenced on or after such date."^[FN3] Under CPL 245.20 (1), the People have a duty to disclose the materials and information listed in CPL 245.20 (1) (a—v). CPL 245.20 (2) directs the People to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable." Under CPL 245.50 (1), the People must file a COC, identifying the items provided, which shall state that "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable [*3]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 245.60 imposes a continuing duty to disclose. When the People subsequently learn of additional materials after a COC has been filed, the People must disclose the additional materials and file a supplemental COC. The filing of a supplemental COC "shall not impact the validity of the original certificate of compliance if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence . . . " (CPL 245.50[1-a]).

The discovery statute imposes an affirmative duty for the People to obtain and provide discovery (see People ex rel. Ferro v Brann, 197 AD3d 787,788 [2d Dept 2021]). However, in People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 (2023), the Court of Appeals explained that the disclosure mandate of CPL 245 does not create a "rule of strict liability" or require a "perfect prosecutor." A COC is valid, despite any deficiencies, if the People "exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery" (Bay, at 211). "Reasonableness, then, is the touchstone—a concept confirmed by the statutory directive to make '"reasonable inquiries"' (id. at 211-212). The question as to whether a prosecutor made reasonable efforts and exercised due diligence "is a mixed question of fact and law" (id. at 216), "case-specific," and "will turn on the circumstances presented" (id. at 212). This requires a court to consider, among other factors: "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 would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery" (id). The "People bear the 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).

The August 7, 2025, amendments codify the standard set by People v Bay, in evaluating whether the People exercised due diligence. Pursuant to CPL 245.50 (5), "[i]n assessing a party's due diligence, the court shall look at the totality of the party's efforts to comply" . . . "rather than assess the party's efforts item by item." CPL 245.50 (5)(a) requires the consideration of the following relevant factors: "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article; the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding; the complexity of the case; whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; whether the omission was corrected; whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and whether the prosecution's delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial." In considering these factors, "no one factor shall be determinative" and other considerations may be taken into account (see CPL 245.50[5] [a][b]). Moreover, a "court shall not invalidate a certificate of compliance where the party has exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material required to be disclosed . . . " (CPL 245.50[6]).

At the outset, it should be noted that in the decision dated August 15, 2025, this Court unequivocally concluded that Search Warrants #306-2024 and #332-2024 were properly issued based on a finding of probable cause. In doing so, this Court made clear that the issuing courts [*4]did not rely on a 4-year-old 2020 dismissed case, or the denied February 9, 2024, search warrant application in finding probable cause for either Search Warrants #306-2024 or #332-2024. This Court addressed the defendant's arguments relating to the 2020 case and the February 9, 2024, application, and determined that none of the issues raised warranted suppression of the evidence or the granting of the requested hearings.

With respect to Search Warrant #306-2024, that application was based upon the affidavit of Detective David Darcy, assigned to the 310 Command, which relied in part on information provided by a confidential informant (CI). On March 2, 2024, Detective Darcy and the CI appeared and testified before Judge Glick under oath. Judge Glick questioned the CI about the information contained in the affidavit and about the CI's basis of knowledge, which established probable cause to issue Search Warrant #306-2024. The defendant's 2020 case or criminal history was irrelevant to the credibility of the CI, or any other information that the CI supplied to Judge Glick, which established probable cause. Additionally, although Judge Glick was not made aware of the February 9, 2024, application, the denial of that application had no bearing on the finding of probable cause. Rather, the search warrant application revealed that there was probable cause to issue Search Warrant #306-2024, because criminal activity could be found in the 2018 Honda Odyssey. Therefore, probable cause was established, irrespective of the colloquy about the defendant's criminal history, or a denied February 9, 2024, search warrant application. With respect to Search Warrant #332-2024, that application relied upon the affidavit of Detective Darcy, which relied in part on information provided by a CI, DEA special agents, and other members of the NYPD. The 2020 search warrant and the dismissal of that case did not undermine any information supplied to Judge Haniff. Rather, the 2020 search warrant and Detective Darcy's participation in its execution, established a nexus between the defendant and the locations to be searched, as clearly stated in the heading for that section. Moreover, Judge Haniff was aware of the February 9, 2024, application, because that information was disclosed in a footnote. The affidavit before Judge Haniff contained evidence of ongoing criminal activity at the locations to be searched, and the facts and circumstances before Judge Haniff at the time of the search warrant application established probable cause to issue Search Warrant #332-2024.

Assuming that the materials are subject to automatic discovery under CPL 245.20, based on the circumstances presented, looking at the "totality" of the People's efforts, as well as the factors outlined in either People v Bay, or CPL 245.50 (5)(a), the People's failure to disclose the documents relating to the 2020 case, and the denied February 9, 2024, search warrant application does not render any of the COCs invalid. This case is the result of a multi-agency investigation into narcotics trafficking, which involved the participation of CIs, DEA special agents, and the execution of search warrants and searches in multiple locations: two vehicles, 4 separate garages, and the defendant's apartment. The searches took place on three dates: on March 5, 2024, two searches on March 6, 2024, and on March 7, 2024. The total searches led to the recovery of multiple loaded firearms, rifles, nearly 900 various types of ammunition, over 900 different types of identified pills, cocaine, money, and other unidentified pills and unidentified substances. The indictment charges thirty-one counts and the volume of the discovery is voluminous. Before filing the July 24, 2024, COC, the People disclosed hundreds of pages of NYPD paperwork consisting of dozens of vouchers for the recovered firearms, controlled substances, cellphones and money; photographs of the property recovered from the vehicles, garages, and apartment; memobooks of the police officers; 37 police officers' body-worn cameras; DD5s; DEA investigation reports; K9 paperwork; Evidence Collection Team files; NYPD laboratory testing [*5]files; grand jury minutes and exhibits; Giglio disclosure letters; and Search Warrants #306-2024 and #332-2024, and their applications. Given the complexity of this case, the volume of discovery turned over, and the efforts made by the People to comply with the statute, the Court finds that the People "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material required to be disclosed" (see CPL 245.50 [6]).

CPL 245.50 (4)(b) requires a defendant to "notify or alert" the People of any potential defect or deficiency in a COC. The defendant has been aware of the reference to the 2020 case and a prior application since July 17, 2024, when the People also disclosed the materials associated with Search Warrants #306-2024 and #332-2024. Search Warrant #306-2024 revealed the colloquy about the defendant's criminal history. Search Warrant #332-2024 revealed Detective Darcy's participation in a 2020 search warrant, and the denial of the February 9, 2024, application. Additionally, under the August 7, 2025 discovery amendments, CPL 245.50 (4)(c) states that challenges to COCs or supplemental COCs must be accompanied by an affirmation detailing that after the People filed the COC, the defendant "timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer" with the People "regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery" or "otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that "no accommodation could be reached."

The defendant failed to submit an affidavit as required under the August 7, 2025, discovery amendments. Rather, the defendant maintains that the "meet and confer requirements under the statute (CPL 245.50(c) were satisfied in the context of the prior motion practice and at the colloquy at the court conferences on August 15, 2025, and September 12, 2025." The defendant does not claim to have made any inquiries before that time, and therefore, did not timely "notify or alert" the People of any potential COC defects. In any event, once notified of the missing materials, the People took prompt remedial actions, without court intervention to resolve the discovery disputes. On August 1, 2025, the People disclosed the denied February 9, 2024, application, and filed a supplemental COC which stated that, "the People are not conceding this item is discoverable but turned it over anyway at defense counsel's request."^[FN4] The People opposed the production of materials related to the 2020 dismissed case and responded that they did not have access to a sealed case. The People's prompt actions in responding to the disputed discovery establish their due diligence, and good faith efforts.

Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the fact that this Court ordered the People to provide the materials or "disagreed" with the People's characterization of the materials as non-discoverable, does not suggest, in any way, that the People's COCs are invalid, or that the People did not exercise due diligence before filing the COCs. Although this Court informed the parties that it believed the February application "relates to the same investigation,"^[FN5] this Court did not make any findings about COCs or the People's due diligence. It was also reasonable for the People to conclude that the materials were not discoverable, given that the 2020 dismissed case and the February application were immaterial to the finding of probable cause for Search [*6]Warrants #306-2024 or #306-2024. In any event, the People promptly disclosed the February application based on the defendant's request, without this Court's intervention. The People's remedial actions, in disclosing the materials, while maintaining that the materials were not discoverable, signal the People's good faith to diligently resolve discovery disputes. As to the defendant's 2020 dismissed case, the People explained that they did not have access to a sealed case. The People could not have disclosed materials that they do not have. Indeed, in its August 15, 2025, decision, this Court acknowledged that the People could not access the 2020 case without an unsealing order by indicating that it would sign an unsealing order from either party. Although the defendant made no efforts to get an unsealing order, the People obtained an unsealing order,^[FN6] and on September 8, 2025, the People filed a supplemental COC and served various materials related to the 2020 dismissed case. Notably, the People disclosed the search warrant, vouchers, photographs, memobooks, DD5s, OCME files, and laboratory reports. As such, the People diligently complied with this Court's order, and the September 8, 2025, supplemental COC is valid.

The defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to receive testimony from Detective Darcy and the assistant district attorney who drafted the February 2024 search warrant application, to provide the basis for the nature of the denial, would only lead to speculation and conjecture. Search warrant applications are heard by "neutral and detached" judges, who at that time, determine whether the facts and circumstances at the time of the search warrant application establish probable cause (see People v Nieves, 36 NY2d 396 [1975]). While it is the People's understanding that the February 9, 2024, application was denied for staleness, only the judge who reviewed the search warrant application, and denied it, can provide credible testimony about the basis for denial. In any event, the circumstances of the denial, or Detective Darcy's alleged "bad faith" in failing to disclose the prior application have absolutely no bearing on the determination of probable cause for either Search Warrants #306-2024 or #332-2024.^[FN7] This Court already determined that the denied February 9, 2024, application was immaterial to the finding of probable cause for either Search Warrants #306-2024 or #332-2024. The People represent that based on their inquiries, the denied February 9, 2024, application was not called on the record, and that no transcripts or logs regarding the denial of the search warrant application exist. Therefore, the People have complied with this Court's order. Any discovery obligations that the People had, if any, as to the denied February 2024, search warrant application have been satisfied.

CPL 245.20 (1) (c) allows the People to redact information that would reveal the identity of a CI. Although having reviewed the unredacted search warrant applications, this Court agreed with the defendant that the redactions went beyond protecting the CI's identity, this Court in no way suggested that the redactions affected the validity of the COCs. The Court ordered the People to disclose additional portions of the search warrant applications, and the People diligently complied with this Court's order. The redactions did not prejudice the defendant or prevent the defendant from making a motion to controvert the search warrant. Despite the [*7]redactions, the defendant had a full opportunity to litigate the search warrants. Therefore, COCs will not be rendered invalid on this basis.

On August 1, 2024,^[FN8] the People filed a supplemental COC and an SOR, after disclosing "gun trace reports." The supplemental COC stated that the materials were a "federal report that is normally not under our control FBI reports." On April 7, 2025, the People filed a supplemental COC, an SOR, and disclosed the certified case file for FBS25-00347, Jack Andrew's Resume, and Performance Monitoring and Proficiency Test Results for Jack Andrew. The People noted that the discovery did not exist at the time of the initial COC.^[FN9] On May 12, 2025, the People produced additional discovery including previously undisclosed body-worn cameras, accompanied by a COC and an SOR. The supplemental COC stated that despite their efforts, the People were unaware of the body-worn cameras. The supplemental COC also explained that the People had previously requested the body-worn cameras, and that the body-worn cameras appeared to be duplicates of other officers' body-worn cameras.^[FN10] The Court finds that each supplemental COC sufficiently detailed a sufficient basis for the delayed disclosure under CPL 245.50 (1-a). Based on the factors outlined in either People v Bay, or CPL 245.50 (5)(a), and given the People's explanation for filing the supplemental COCs, the Court finds that these belated disclosures do not invalidate any of the prior COCs. The defendant has not pointed to any deficiencies in the supplemental COCs, which would render them invalid. Rather, the filing of the supplemental COCs establishes the People's continued diligent efforts to comply with their discovery obligations.

On September 18, 2025, the People disclosed 22 body-worn camera videos from the following police officers: David Darcy, Jonathan Taveras, Salvatore Rizzo, Haroonul Hassan, Jose Henriquez, Douglas Moodie, James Mills, and Jose Delgado, depicting portions of the execution of the Search Warrant #332-2024, at the four garages. In their response, the People detail the efforts that they made to obtain the body-worn cameras before filing the initial COC. The People explain that in preparation for the grand jury presentation, the People met and discussed the case with Detective Darcy, Sergeant Taveras, Detective Rizzo, and Detective Mills on multiple dates both in person, and on the phone, and requested that the officers share the NYPD's materials related to the case, including all body-worn cameras. The People affirm that on March 5, 7, 8, and 13, 2024, they received body-worn cameras. On April 1, 2024, after reviewing the previously received body-worn cameras, the People submitted a request to the NYPD discovery liaison for all body-worn cameras. On April 4, 2024, the People met with Detective Rizzo and Detective Darcy and inquired about body-worn cameras. When the detectives informed the People that body-worn cameras were still missing, the People emailed Detective Darcy asking him to share the body-worn cameras that were still missing. The People also affirm that on April 5, 2024, the People submitted a request for additional body-worn cameras. On April 19, 2024, and May 7, 2024, the People received additional body-worn cameras. The People affirm that on May 29, 2024, the People submitted another request for [*8]body-worn cameras. On June 3, 2024, the People provided initial discovery and disclosed 32 body-worn cameras. On June 26, 2024, the People submitted another request for body-worn cameras, and on July 17, 2024, the People disclosed additional body-worn cameras. The People indicated that on September 15, 2025, they became aware of additional body-worn cameras and promptly requested them. In the September 18, 2025, supplemental COC, the People explained that they had previously requested all body-worn cameras, and despite their good faith, diligent efforts, the People were not aware of the existence of the additional body-worn cameras. The supplemental COC also noted that the additional body-worn cameras appeared to be duplicative of other officers' body-worn cameras.

The charges against the defendant stem from the search of four locations, on three separate dates, which led to the recovery of various firearms, various rifles, ammunition, identified pills, cocaine, money, and other unidentified pills and other substances. The searches generated voluminous discovery and body-worn cameras. The People recounted the steps they took to obtain body-worn cameras by detailing the dates and follow-up dates, in which the People made efforts to ascertain the existence of the body-worn cameras before filing the July 24, 2024, COC. The discovery statute does not require the People to submit "proof" or documentation of the requests or follow-ups. This Court relies on the People's representations made in their affirmation. Moreover, the record does not support the conclusion that the People's failure to timely disclose the body-worn cameras was due to bad faith or the lack of due diligence (see People v Deas, 226 AD3d 823, 826 [2d Dept 2024]). This is not a case where the People denied the existence of discoverable material or where the People made no efforts to turn over the discovery (see People v McMahon, 237 AD3d 746 [2d Dept 2025]). Notably, the belated body-worn cameras were recorded on March 6, 2024, the date that the police executed two separate search warrants, which included the search of four separate garages. Given the voluminous body-worn cameras already produced as part of the discovery, which captured four different searches, on three separate dates, it would not have been obvious to the People that body-worn cameras were still missing, after having conferred with the officers and making multiple requests. Although it appears that the 22 body-worn cameras fell through the cracks, when considered as part of a "holistic assessment," "rather than a strict item-by-item test," (People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 [4th Dept 2024]), it is also clear that the People undertook significant efforts to provide the defendant with the discoverable materials in a diligent manner (see People v Contompais, 236 AD3d 138 [3d Dept 2025] [COC valid despite belated disclosures because the discoverable material involved was voluminous, with thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of photographs, and a significant amount of video footage, which leads to the conclusion that the delayed disclosures were merely the result of a prosecutor who, having exercised due diligence, and missed a few discoverable items]; People v Terry, 231 AD3d 1497 [4th Dept 2024] [the People exercised due diligence despite the belated disclosure of body-worn camera footage from two state troopers investigating robber; the discovery was voluminous as shown by the lengthy list of disclosed material submitted with the initial COC]). Therefore, under the circumstances presented, and looking at the "totality" of the People's efforts and upon consideration of the factors in either People v Bay or CPL 245.50 (5)(a), the Court finds that the belated disclosure of the body-worn cameras does not invalidate the COC or supplemental COCs. The defendant's claims regarding chain of custody and potential evidence contamination issues as a result of Detective Darcy carrying a firearm supposedly recovered from one of the garage areas to a police vehicle, are not a basis for invalidating a COC, where [*9]the People exercise due diligence and made diligent efforts to obtain the body-worn cameras.

In sum, nothing in the record suggests that the COC and supplemental COCs were improper or filed in bad faith and were not reasonable under the circumstances. There is no basis to render any of the People's COC or supplemental COCs invalid. The Court finds that the COC and supplemental COCs that have been filed during the pendency of this case are all valid. The People's SORs are also presumed to be correct, "[i]n the absence of proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People's position . . . " (People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998]). Therefore, the motion to invalidate the COCs, supplemental COCs, and SORs is DENIED.

The defendant has not set forth any basis for reconsideration of this Court's decision, which denied the motion to controvert Search Warrants #306-2024 and #332-2024. The request for an evidentiary hearing to determine the reason for the denial of the February 9, 2024, search warrant application is also DENIED.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.