By motion dated November 26, 2025, defendant moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e), arguing that the People's certificates of compliance ("CoC") are invalid and all accompanying statements of readiness ("SoR") are illusory because the prosecution did not fulfill its discovery mandate nor comply with an outstanding court order concerning disclosure of an NYPD complainant entity report. As such, defendant avers that the People have exceeded their statutorily prescribed speedy trial time of 90 days. Alternatively, defendant moves for sanctions pursuant to CPL §§ 245.60 and 245.80 and seeks to reserve his right to file additional motions as necessary. On December 22, 2025, the prosecution opposes the motion in its entirety.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the People's CoC and supplemental CoCs dated May 23 (twice), June 30, and December 18, 2025, and their accompanying SoRs, were VALID; and further that:

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was TIMELY; and

Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

Defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to CPL § 245.80 is DENIED; and

The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §§ 200.95 and 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order pursuant to CPL§§ 245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2).

On March 1, 2025, defendant was arrested and charged with violating Penal Law ("PL") §§ 120.14 (1) (menacing in the second degree) and 265.01 (2) (criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree), both misdemeanors, and 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a violation. Defendant was arraigned the following day and released on her own recognizance. The information alleges that on March 1, 2025, at approximately 8:52 a.m. inside 218 Bush Street in the Bronx, defendant menaced and harassed the complaining witness ^[FN1] while brandishing a knife.

The People filed and served their automatic disclosure form, CoC and SoR on May 23, 2025, and that same day, filed a supplemental CoC ("SCoC") with their disclosures concerning Giglio documentation for Police Officer ("PO") Doyle and PO Saline. On June 30, the People filed a second SCoC with their disclosure of 911 files with an explanation that the omission of the material from their initial disclosures had been inadvertent but resolved following conferral with defense counsel.

At a compliance conference held before this Court on August 21, 2025, the parties discussed their extensive efforts to confer concerning items initially deemed missing, to wit: 911 call information, DD5, surveillance video, I-Card and a complainant entity report. Defense counsel advised the Court that the only items that remained outstanding were the DD5 and the entity report, the latter of which the assigned ADA informed the Court was not generated for defendant's arrest. Based upon the People's representation that any generated I-Card would have concerned an incident prior to the subject arrest, the Court held that it was not relevant to the instant matter and, further, deemed the entity report supplemental rather than initial disclosure material (affirmation of defense counsel, exhibit 2, tr at 14, lines 7-9, tr at 15, lines 15-17). The Court directed the People to inquire of the arresting officer for the entity report and advise at the next appearance but ruled that the entity report would not be the basis for invalidating the CoC, which was deemed valid (affirmation of defense counsel, exhibit 2, tr at 18, lines 23-25, tr at 19, lines 1, 23-25, tr at 20, lines 1-2).

By Decision and Order dated October 23, 2025, Hon. David L. Goodwin decided defendant's Omnibus motion dated September 10, 2025, as follows: defendant's request for an order precluding the People from introducing evidence at trial concerning any prior convictions or bad acts was referred to the trial court as was defendant's request for a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing, and her request for an order reserving the right to file additional motions was denied subject to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3).

On December 18, the People served their third SCoC which detailed their efforts to obtain complaint report materials and provided notice of and the basis for their redactions.

Defense counsel asserts that the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence because the assigned ADA, although made aware of the missing entity report on June 23, 2025, made no effort to obtain an item which can be "pulled up at any time" by the NYPD. Further, defendant [*2]avers that for almost two months the assigned ADA failed to comply with this Court's directive to follow up with the NYPD concerning the existence of the report without which defendant is deprived of information vital to his defense. Accordingly, defendant argues that the People's CoC must be deemed invalid and, thus, the prosecution's speedy trial time elapsed. In the alternative, defense counsel argues that sanctions against the People are warranted where the assigned ADA did not respond to this Court's directive to affirmatively confirm that she inquired if the NYPD could produce an entity report notwithstanding the arresting officer's claim that none was generated.

Defense counsel also contends that the amendments to Article 245 are inapplicable because where the initial CoC was filed before the changes went into effect, analysis based on the new discovery law would be tantamount to a retroactive application without a clear Legislative intent to do so. Even against the August 2025 amendments to Article 245, defendant asserts that the failure to comply with a court order concerning the entity report, which is not duplicative of other discovery, jeopardizes his ability to prepare for trial, and that this unexplained lapse was not remedied nor self-reported.

The People maintain that they satisfied this Court's order to ascertain if the entity report could be generated as demonstrated by their repeated efforts to liaise with the 46th Precinct (People's affirmation at 3, exhibit 1). The assigned ADA submitted for the Court's review emails dated October 3, 6, 8 and 23, all seeking to confirm whether an entity report was, or could be, prepared, to which the NYPD police administrative aide replied, "Entity Summary is not GENERATED FOR THE VICTIMS" (People's affirmation, exhibit 1, email dated October 23, 2025). The People further contend that they are under no obligation to create discovery (People's memorandum of law at 6).

Additionally, the prosecution avers that the Legislature expressed a clear intent for the 2025 Amendments to Article 245 to apply to all cases pending as of August 7, 2025, the day the amendments were enacted (People's memorandum of law at 7). The assigned ADA further asserts that the prosecution's CoC was valid because, in accordance with CPL § 245.60, the People have fulfilled their continuing duty to disclose records subject to discovery (People's memorandum of law at 5). Lastly, the People oppose defendant's reservation of rights and request reciprocal discovery and defendant's CoC (People's memorandum of law at 9).

In People v Bay, the Court of Appeals found that, in evaluating prosecutorial due diligence, the "key question in determining if a proper certificate of compliance has been filed is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to determine the existence of material and information subject to discovery," a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar (see Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-213 [2023] [emphasis added]; CPL §§ 245.20 [1], 245.50 [1]). The Bay Court further emphasized that to oppose a motion to dismiss because the prosecution's CoC is illusory, 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" (see Bay at 213 [emphasis added]).

Many of the factors set forth in the Bay decision animate the Legislature's August 2025 amendments to New York's discovery law with one notable change providing that the People are no longer required to provide automatic discovery before filing their CoC if they demonstrate [*3]that they exercised due diligence and acted in good faith to fulfill their disclosure mandate (see CPL § 245.50 [1] [emphasis added]). Additionally, pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), the movant seeking to challenge a CoC must provide an affirmation that they timely conferred in good faith, or made efforts to do so, concerning the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge (see CPL § 245.50 [4] [c]).

Moreover, the 2025 Legislative reforms enumerate several factors a court must consider to measure the opposing party's due diligence, including the volume of discovery provided, whether the prosecution's lapse was self-reported, if the omission was corrected and whether the assigned ADA knew that missing or belatedly disclosed information existed (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a]). However, the statutory guidance specifically provides that the court's determination shall be based on the totality of the party's efforts to comply rather than any one factor referenced therein (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a], [b] [emphasis added]).

In a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1), the defendant has the initial burden to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to declare trial readiness within the statutorily prescribed time, 90 days (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]); People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78 [1995]). The burden then shifts to the People to identify excludable delays (see Luperon, 85 NY2d at 78).

Additionally, the prosecution must declare readiness for trial on the record (see People v England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994] ["Trial readiness in CPL § 30.30 means both a communication of readiness by the People on the record and an indication of present readiness"] citing Kendzia at 337). Lastly, the People must satisfy their statutory obligation pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (3), which provides that "the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section" (see Id.).

While defense counsel argues that amendments to Article 245 should not apply to the instant matter, this action was pending on August 7, 2025, and there is no controversy where the Legislature provided, in pertinent part, that:

§ 8. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall apply to all criminal actions pending on such date and all actions commenced on or after such date.

(see CPL § 245.50 [1], Laws 2025, ch 56, § 8 [Part LL], eff August 7, 2025 [emphasis added])

As an initial matter, given this Court's prior ruling that the purportedly missing entity report was not a basis to invalidate the prosecution's CoC, defendant's petition amounts to a disguised motion to reargue. Indeed, defense counsel attached a copy of an email from the assigned ADA dated October 7, 2025, wherein she advised the defense, the AP3 clerk and the Court's court attorney, that the People "received a response from the 46 precinct confirming again that an entity report for the complainant was not generated" (defense counsel's exhibit 4). This email satisfied the Court's directive.

Moreover, while it is defense counsel's fervent contention that although "there is only one item of discovery missing here, it is of the kind that is tantamount to a serious deprivation of [*4]defense's ability to prepare for trial," this Court has previously held that "(i)t must be axiomatic that the prosecution does not have a duty to disclose evidence which was never created" (see People v Ramirez, 88 Misc 3d 1215[A], 2026 NY Slip Op 50101[U], *5 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2026] citing People v Lebron, 82 Misc 3d 1251[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50593[U], *3 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024]). Here, the assigned ADA has provided this Court with compelling proof that the entity report is not a missing discovery item because it was never generated and would not have been generated for a complaining witness. The Court declines to invalidate the CoC because of the nondisclosure of a single item which does not exist.

The diligence and "reasonableness under the circumstances" standards articulated in the Bay decision expressly reject the notion of a perfect prosecutor, particularly where the Bay decision cautions trial courts to adjudicate due diligence based upon "a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar" (see People v Valentin, 82 Misc 3d 1237[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50487[U], *4 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024] citing Bay at 212). Similarly, the CPL § 245.50 (5) (b) amendment to Article 245 provides that "the court's determination shall be based on consideration of all factors listed in paragraph (a)" (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [b]). The record at bar demonstrates that the parties diligently conferred and that, as a consequence, the assigned ADA continually followed up to provide responsive materials and to comply with this Court's discovery order.

Generally, a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant, and it is settled law that the date on which the action is commenced is excluded from the CPL § 30.30 computation (see CPL § 1.20 [17]; see also People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Accordingly, the People's speedy trial time began to accrue on March 2, 2025, the day following defendant's arraignment. The People validly declared readiness for trial by filing their initial CoC and SoR on May 23, 2025 (March 2, 2025 — May 23, 2025 = 82 days), within their statutorily allotted time (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied.

The People also opposed defendant's request for omnibus relief including an order granting the right to make further motions as necessary. However, the issue is moot given the decision dated October 23, 2025, which referred Sandoval/Ventimiglia issues to the trial court and denied defendant's reservation of rights subject to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3).

Based upon the foregoing, that the People's CoC and supplemental CoCs dated May 23 (twice), June 30, and December 18, 2025, respectively, and their accompanying SoRs, were VALID; and further:

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was TIMELY; and

Defendant's motion for sanctions pursuant to CPL § 245.80 is DENIED; and

Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

The People are DIRECTED to comply with their continuing discovery obligations pursuant to CPL §§ 200.95 and 245, including Brady/Vilardi disclosures; and

Defense counsel is DIRECTED to certify discovery compliance within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order pursuant to CPL§§ 245.20 (4) and 245.50 (2).

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.