By motion dated December 15, 2025, defendant moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 30.30 (5-a), asserting that the People's certificate of compliance ("CoC") is invalid because the prosecution did not fulfill its discovery mandate pursuant to § 245.20 (1). Alternatively, defendant moves for an order precluding the prosecution from introducing evidence of defendant's prior arrests, convictions or bad acts or, alternatively, for a Sandoval/Ventimiglia hearing, and for a hearing pursuant to People v Allard to resolve any disputed issues of material fact. Lastly, defendant seeks to reserve his right to file additional motions as necessary. 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 CoCs and Statements of Readiness ("SoRs") dated November 10, 2025, and January 8, 2026, were INVALID; and further that:

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

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

All remaining branches of defendant's motion to dismiss are rendered MOOT.

On August 11, 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 his own recognizance. The information alleges that on July 29, 2025, at approximately 9:10 p.m. in front of 390 Jackson Avenue in the Bronx, defendant menaced and harassed the complaining witness ^[FN1] [*2]while brandishing a knife.

The People filed and served their automatic disclosure form, CoC and SoR on November 10, 2025, and on January 8, 2026, they filed a supplemental CoC which advised defense counsel that body-worn camera ("BWC") footage from the date of the incident and from home visits to the complainant had still not been obtained despite multiple requests.

At a compliance conference held on November 19, 2025, defense counsel advised the court that the People's recent disclosures were still under review, and the court set a motion schedule to challenge the prosecution's certification. The People's opposition and defendant's reply were filed on January 5 and January 9, 2026, respectively.

I. Legal Arguments

Defendant

Defendant's motion to dismiss is predicated on the non-disclosure of three items: (1) BWC footage from the date of the alleged incident; (2) BWC footage from home visits to the complaining witness; and (3) BWC audit trail logs (defendant's memorandum of law at 10-15). Specifically, defense counsel avers that the assigned ADA's lack of due diligence is demonstrated by the People's contradictory responses that BWC footage from the alleged incident had already been disclosed while also claiming, post-CoC filing, that this footage had been requested multiple times to no avail (defendant's memorandum of law at 12). Next, defendant asserts that the assigned ADA acknowledges that BWC from home visits has not been disclosed and contends that this admission establishes proper grounds to invalidate the CoC (defendant's memorandum of law at 14). Additionally, defense counsel refutes the prosecution's contention that defendant has the burden to demonstrate why audit trails should be automatically discoverable (defendant's memorandum of law at 14-16).

In reply, defense counsel rebuts the People's claim that information in the NYPD scratch complaint is duplicative of BWC footage from the date of the alleged incident because the former is often a mere summary of witness statements rather than a recording of the complainant's interactions with law enforcement, and of the officer's efforts to investigate the claims (defendant's reply brief at 6). Defendant further asserts that the Court should reject the People's arguments that neither BWC footage from home visits nor audit trails could manifest information relevant to the subject charges (defendant's reply brief at 8-9).

The People

Initially, the People maintain audit logs are not automatically discoverable because they do not relate to the subject matter of the case because unlike BWC footage, audit trails do not contain factual assertions about the charged activity, nor are they produced as an investigative tool (People's affirmation at 8). Although not addressed in defendant's motion, the People insist that: defendant is not entitled to an unredacted entity report because the redacted material did not relate to the subject matter of the case; the arraignment card was belatedly disclosed; the arrest report worksheet/information sheet does not exist although it was mistakenly listed on the People's CoC; Giglio materials for non-testifying Police Officer Taveraspena are not discoverable; and the People are not required to disclose Google maps and photos where the prosecution has not yet determined whether either will be introduced at hearing/trial (People's affirmation at 9-12).

Concerning the nondisclosure of BWC footage, the People claim that they exercised due diligence by disclosing two BWC videos depicting 97 minutes of footage from defendant's arrest [*3]and, further, that the assigned ADA specifically requested BWC footage of home visits on August 18, October 16, October 17, October 30, November 6, November 10, December 31 2025, and January 5, 2026, but no additional footage was shared (People's affirmation at 13). The People argue that this non-disclosure "is hardly prejudicial footage which would bar the defendant from making a proper defense" (People's affirmation at 13-14). Lastly, the assigned ADA contends that the 2025 Amendments to CPL § 245.50 (5), specifically, whether: the belated discovery was substantially duplicative; the omission was corrected; the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action; and whether the delayed disclosure was prejudicial to the defense or its ability to effectively investigate the case (People's affirmation at 14-15).

II. Applicable Legal Standard

The CoC Challenge

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 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 statute 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]).

The CPL § 30.30 Challenge

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 [*4]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.).

III. The Court's Analysis

Audit Trail Logs

This Court finds the People's insistence that audit trails lack any factual assertions or description of the charges relative to the subject matter to be unavailing because the NYPD Patrol Guide Procedure Number 212-123, which governs the use of Body-Worn Cameras, provides, in pertinent part, that the arresting officer/assigned officer is required to annotate BWC footage in an Activity Log describing the circumstances of the encounter, investigation or arrest document and that if a "category that identifies [the] incident is not available, enter pertinent details of event in the description section of evidence detail page. Hence, these mandated annotations to BWC footage, which are not constrained by fixed dropdown categories, are unquestionably automatically discoverable as police reports" (see People v Rollerson, 82 Misc 3d 1212[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50291[U], *3 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024]; see also New York City Police Department Patrol Guide Procedure No. 212-123, ¶¶ 12-13).

The assigned ADA claims that audit trail logs are not automatic disclosures pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) (iv), however, this Court finds that, although unsettled by appellate guidance, the People had no authority to preemptively withhold potentially discoverable information concerning annotations to the audit trail logs pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) (e). Moreover, this Court finds that it strains credulity to argue that audit trail logs concerning BWC footage for the subject incident and arrest do not relate to the subject matter of the case.

BWC footage

This Court rejects the People's attempt to shift the burden to prove the relevance of categories of discovery which fall within the ambit of automatic disclosures pursuant to CPL § 245.20 (1) where the items in question relate to the subject matter of the charges at bar. In People v Peralta, we held that "to potentially allow the prosecution to cherry-pick around possibly valuable or favorable evidence where it has long been recognized that the best judge of the value of evidence to a defendant's case is the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused seems to contravene the Legislature's intent to ameliorate conditions wrought by New York's former criminal discovery statute which too often resulted in defendants being denied vitally important information, essential to make rational decisions about their pending cases" (see Peralta, 79 Misc 3d 945, 955 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023][internal quotations omitted] citing Assembly Mem in Support of 2019 Assembly Bill A04360, incorporated in L 2020].

It is not for the prosecution to determine what BWC footage is irrelevant or not detrimental to the defense, and due diligence required the assigned ADA to make timely inquiries to obtain discovery that relates to the subject matter of the case, and is within the sole possession and control of law enforcement under the People's direction and control (see People v Gonzalez, 86 Misc 3d 1230[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51064[U], *2 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]). The record demonstrates that there is but a single reference to a phone call made to "officers" whose BWC would have depicted what transpired on the dates of the home visits as well as depicting the incident that precipitated defendant's arrest. The assigned ADA's statement that the People are following up with the NYPD's "in-office video unit" is well short of the due diligence standards enunciated in Bay (see Bay at 212).

[*5]Due Diligence

The People posit that their compliance and the validity of their CoC filings should be measured against the 2025 Amendments to Article 245. Accordingly, it is this Court's determination that based upon consideration of all the factors listed in CPL § 245.50 (5), the non-disclosure of materials deemed to be automatically discoverable (and those specifically discussed in defendant's motion), audit trail logs and BWC video of home visits and the subject incident, were not substantially duplicative nor was the lapse corrected. Additionally, the prosecution did not self-report the error and take prompt remedial action. This is not a complex case nor was the volume of the People's production so substantial as to extenuate the omission of material discovery. Moreover, where the nondisclosed items were subject to CPL § 245.20 (1), the Court holds that their nondisclosure was, at a minimum, prejudicial to defense counsel's ability to effectively investigate the case.

The Bay decision cautioned 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). The record at bar establishes that the People did not demonstrate due diligence in their efforts to comply with their discovery obligations.

IV. The CPL § 30.30 Calculation

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 August 12, 2025, the day following defendant's arraignment. The People's CoCs and SoRs dated November 10, 2025, and January 8, 2026, were invalid and, thus, the People failed to declare readiness within their statutorily prescribed time (August 12, 2025 — December 15, 2025 = 125 days) (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]).

Based upon the foregoing, the prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 was UNTIMELY; and

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

All remaining branches of defendant's motion to dismiss are rendered MOOT.

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