The case before the Court presents an issue of first impression. Specifically, whether the People's discovery obligations under CPL §245.20 and CPL §245.50 are satisfied where the Defendant has multiple misdemeanor dockets, same arrest date for both dockets, the same defense attorney on both matters and where the People produced discovery in one docket only and seek to assign that same discovery to a second docket without actual production. Moreover, where the People put forth an argument that duplication of the discovery for each docket is technologically difficult yet not impossible.

After consideration of the existing statutes and Legislative intent and an evaluation of and explanation of existing case law, the Court finds that the People's attempt to circumvent their statutory obligation as to the second docket before the Court does not comply with CPL §245.20 and CPL §245.50. Thus, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

Defendant, Robert McIntrye, is charged with VTL §511 (2)(A)(IV) [Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Second Degree]; VTL §1160 (E) [U-Turns]; VTL §1163 (C) [Turning Movements and Required Signals].

On May 9, 2025, the accusatory instrument was filed in Queens County Criminal Court under docket CR-017724-25QN (hereinafter "docket 724"). On May 8th, 2025, Ofc. Joshua Olmeda of the 116th Pct, observed the Defendant operating a 2006 Black Ford Van, when the Defendant allegedly failed to signal and made an illegal U-turn. At the stop, the Defendant was unable to produce a license and the police records via DAS showed that the Defendant's license had been suspended twenty-eight (28) times and was presently suspended.

Simultaneously, the Defendant was also arrested on May 8th, 2025, for an incident that allegedly took place on April 23, 2025, which was docketed under CR-017723-25QN [*2](hereinafter "docket 723"). In this docket, the Defendant was charged with VTL §511 (2)(A)(IV) [Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of Motor Vehicle in the Second Degree] and VTL §600 (2) (A) [Leaving the Scene of an Accident Without Reporting]. In a decision by this Court dated December 23rd, 2025, docket 723 was dismissed pursuant to CPL§§ 170.30 (1) (E) and 30.30, as a result of the People's failure to convert.^[FN1]

On May 9th, 2025, the Defendant was arraigned on docket 724 in AR-3. The matter was adjourned to July 24, 2025, to AP-1. On July 22, 2025, the People filed their off-calendar Certificate of Compliance (hereinafter "COC") and Statement of Readiness (hereinafter "SOR"). On July 24, 2025, the People answered, "ready" and the case was adjourned to October 6, 2025, for trial.

On October 6, 2025, the case was adjourned to December 8, 2025, for motion practice. A motion schedule was set, and the case was adjourned for Decision.

Before the court is the Defendant's motion seeking to invalidate the People's "COC" for docket 724, filed on July 22, 2025.

The Defendant contends that the July 22nd COC under docket 724 is invalid due to omissions that invalidate the People's readiness. The Defendant argues that a COC is valid only where "the prosecution has . . . exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by §245.20(1)" (except for any lost or destroyed materials, and materials subject to a protective order). CPL §245.50(1); see People v. Bay, 41 NY3d at 211-12; see Defendant's Motion pg. 3. On September 4, 2025, the Defendant sent a conferral email to the People for missing discovery materials. The Defendant asserts that the following discovery is missing:

1. BWC footage for all officers

2. Dash Cam Footage for Ofc. Buckley;

3. DMV Records;

4. Civil Representatives Witness;

5. Police Misconduct Materials for all testifying officers;

6. BWC Audit Trails;

7. Activity Logs;

8. NYPD Arraignment card, Pre-arraignment notification report, prisoner holding pen roster, interrupted patrol log, command logs, and property vouchers.

The People argue that their COC is valid, and it was filed in good faith and after the exercise of due diligence as defined in CPL § 245.50(5). Moreover, that viewed "holistically," the defendant has failed to put forth any basis to invalidate it. Furthermore, the People argue that the Defendant has failed to make sufficient showing of prejudice such that he is entitled to any remedy, let alone the drastic remedy of dismissal. see People's Opposition pg. 11.

Critically, the People also aver that:

"Considering that the arrest dates for both dockets were the same date and had a great deal of officer overlap, many of the discovery documents related to this instant case for docket CR-017724-25QN were inputted into the Queens County District Attorney's office under the CR-017723-25QN docket". see People's Opposition pg. 4.

In addition, the People assert that sharing the same documents in both separate dockets would cause a substantial technological issue. see People's Opposition pg. 4-5. In support of this assertion, the People provided a copy of a communication that took place on October 27, 2025, between the assigned ADA and Nicole Gerace (Application Support Analyst), and said analyst stated that:

"[T]he process to link the documents to two separate cases could be laborious depending on the number of documents. Specifically, the assigned ADA would need to work with the technology department to link the two NYPD complaint reports, also known as "61 number" together. This would allow for ECMS related reports to be accessible to both dockets relatively quickly. However, any additional paperwork, generally such as arrest paperwork, vouchers, activity logs, and so forth would need to be individually downloaded and then re- uploaded separately and distinctly into the second docket. Then, lastly, the documents could be re-shared to the defense. This would have placed an undue burden on the Assigned ADA considering that the requested documents were already disclosed to a counsel who is the same defense attorney for both dockets."

In effect, the People assert that their obligation under docket 724 was satisfied by disclosing overlapping discovery under docket 723 and that even attempting to produce discovery for docket 724 individually, though not impossible given the steps provided by the Support Analyst, would place an "undue burden on the Assigned ADA."

Even after Defendant forwarded a conferral to the Assigned ADA, the People still maintained that their discovery obligations had been met since the Defendant was already in receipt of discoverable materials that were disclosed under docket 723. see Defendant's Motion, Exhibit F.

As to the specific discovery material at issue, the People contend that the BWC footage and associated metadata from Officers Bellofato, Buckley, Chauvet, Gomes, Joachim, Logatto, Olmeda, and Wilson were disclosed under docket 723. see People's Opposition pg. 53. The People also represent to the Court that the command log and pedigree card had been disclosed to the Defendant under docket 723. see People's Opposition pg. 54.

On the other hand, the Defendant argues that the NYPD activity logs for OFCs Bellofatto, Joachim, Buckley, Chauvet, Olmeda, Logatto, Gomes, and Wilson were not produced and/or, are not complete. see Defendant's Motion pg. 9. Once again, the People contend that the material had already been disclosed under docket 723. see People's Opposition pg. 53.

When interpreting statutes, the Court's primary duty "is to ascertain the legislative intent and construe the pertinent statutes to effectuate that intent." see People v Dondorfer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00823 Ct App (NY), see also; People v Roberts, 31 NY3d 406, 418 (2018) [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]. The public movement toward a change in New York [*3]State's discovery laws began in 2014. At the time, the Justice Task Force proposed reforms to the discovery laws in light of documented concerns that the available discovery "often comes too late to permit both sides to investigate facts fully and make informed decisions before trial" see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 214 (2023) quoting Report of the New York State Justice Task Force of its Recommendations Regarding Criminal Discovery Reform at 5 (2014).

Since 2019, there have been several reforms involving discovery laws. As recently as 2025, the legislature considered and implemented various discovery reforms to the existing laws. The goal of the 2025 reforms were to curtail the dismissal of cases taking into consideration the obligations on the part of the prosecution. Nonetheless, overall, the reforms intended to promote efficiency in the criminal justice system, speed up pre-trial discovery, trial process, and ultimately to promote the fair and efficient administration of justice. see Senate Mem in Support of 2025 NY Senate Bill S02072 (2025-2026 Legislative Session)

Furthermore, the Court will consider the statutory text, interpreting it as it is written; "[i]n the absence of a statutory definition, we construe words of ordinary import with their usual and commonly understood meaning" see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023) [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], and consistent with their " 'precise and well settled legal meaning in the jurisprudence of the state' " see People v Dondorfer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00823 Ct App (NY), see also; Matter of Moran Towing and Transp. Co. v New York State Tax Commn., 72 NY2d 166, 173 (1988), quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 233.

In accordance with the above, this Court determines that pursuant to CPL § 245.20, the Legislature intended for each case to have its own Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness and to accomplish this, the People are required to disclose materials that "relate to the subject matter of the case." A review of the legislative history and the "plain meaning" of CPL § 245.20, while considering the facts before the Court, does not lead to a conclusion that the Legislature envisioned, as part of the overall goal, that discovery in one of the Defendant's cases could be assigned to another case without separate actual production.

Moreover, in its determination, this court considers the new analytical framework on the validity of a COC which took into effect on August 7, 2025. The new statutory language moves away from a rigid, item-by-item checklist and instead directs the court to look at the "totality of the party's efforts" to comply with CPL §245.20. see CPL §245.50(5).

Pursuant to the new legislative change to CPL §245.20 the court must make a due diligence assessment for the following: 1) efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor's office to comply with the statutory requirements; 2) volume of discovery provided and outstanding; 3) the complexity of the case; 4) whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material exists; 5) the explanation for any discovery lapse; 6) the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery; 7) whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; 8) whether the omission was corrected; 9) whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention and 10) whether the prosecution 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. see CPL §245.50.

It does appear that the People considered the element of "whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative," to assume that such would apply to a defendant's multiple dockets. However, that assumption would contravene the overall goal as established by the Legislature. The issue of duplication must apply to one case at a time and not multiple dockets [*4]to ascertain that each case has its own COC and SOR, accomplished by the production of materials that relate to the subject matter of the specific case. see CPL § 245.20.

In the case at bar, it is evident that dockets 723 and 724 are separate and independent from each other since each docket is unique with its own set of facts and varying details. Both criminal actions commenced with their own separate accusatory instruments filed in Criminal Court and docket 723 was dismissed whereas, 724 continued in its path. Moreover, it is well established that even when matters are consolidated for trial, that a court will analyze the People's readiness for trial separately as to each docket with the date of the filing of the accusatory instrument marking the beginning of the period. see People v. Raglin, 175 Misc 2d 1003, 673 N.Y.S.2d 285 (Crim Ct, Queens County 1998). Where a court must consider each docket individually even when consolidated for trial, it follows logically that for the purposes of discovery, the parties must also consider each docker individually.

This Court also conducted a "holistic assessment" along with the new factors of the People's efforts to comply with the automatic discovery provisions as to docket 724 and the Court has found that by failing to produce the separate though overlapping discovery for this docket, there is insufficient evidence of due diligence. see People v Budhu 2024 NY Misc. Lexis 5234 (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2024) quoting People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220, 207 N.Y.S.3d 311 (4th Dept. 2024). Since each docket must be considered separately, the People's attempt to assign discovery from one docket to another without actual separate production cannot be deemed to be "due diligence" but can be deemed to be a mere circumvention that deprives the Defendant of a statutory right and does not serve the "fair and efficient administration of justice."

Commonsensically, were the Court to permit an assignation of discovery from one docket to another without separate actual production, it would unavoidably open the door to confusion and failures to produce mandated discovery. Clearly, in the case before the Court, there is an argument that this mode of production, as utilized by the People, resulted in missing discovery. Moreover, docket 723 was dismissed and by this time sealed and one can only speculate as to the potential technological issues that may result and may affect the continuing case and ultimately, the Defendant's right to have clarity in order to prepare for trial.

Undoubtedly, an argument can be put forth that the Defendant was not prejudiced since the same attorney received some overlapping discovery although as asserted by the defense, not all the mandated discovery. The risk of confusion and failures to meet the statutory obligations is too great in the larger scheme to permit this mode of production. The Court is sympathetic to the apparent "undue burden" that separate discovery production would place on the assigned ADA, however, by their support analyst's statement, there is a mode to comply, perhaps not as easy as simply uploading documents but still there is mode to do so. In other words, the People did not argue impossibility but simply argued, difficulty. This Court perhaps would have considered even the attempt to produce in separate dockets, post the defense's conferral, in its overall holistic assessment but the facts demonstrate that such an attempt was not even entertained.

Simply stated, the People's argument that they have diligently complied with their discovery obligations under docket 724 by asserting that some overlapping discoverable materials were disclosed under docket 723, which was dismissed, is not accepted. These cases have two separate dockets, two different times and places of occurrence, different charges, and different sets of facts. It follows that each docket requires individual production of mandated discoverable materials. The People were notified by the Defendant about missing discovery in [*5]docket 724 on September 4, 2025, and still failed to disclose the materials, specifically, the BWC footage and metadata and activity logs. The People's lack of diligence is primarily found in their unwillingness to duplicate their efforts for both dockets individually.

There is no doubt that the Defendant is entitled to clarity when it comes to all his dockets regardless of the timing of the arrests or how many dockets the defendant has. The People's attempt to circumvent their obligation in the manner described herein indicates a willful failure to comply with their statutory obligation. Thus, meriting dismissal on this ground.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to invalidate the People's "COC" filed on July 22, 2025 under docket 724 is GRANTED.

Sealing is stayed for 30 days

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.