| People v Peters |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 50406(U) [88 Misc 3d 1242(A)] [88 Misc 3d 1242(A)] [88 Misc 3d 1242(A)] [88 Misc 3d 1242(A)] [88 Misc 3d 1242(A)] [88 Misc 3d 1242(A)] |
| Decided on February 3, 2026 |
| Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County |
| Wolf, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
The People of
the
State of New York
against Chenequa Peters, Defendant. |
Summary
Defense motion seeking dismissal of the information on statutory speedy trial grounds is DENIED.On August 11, 2025 Chenequa Peters was arrested and charged with criminal contempt, attempted assault and harassment in violation of Penal Law §§ 215.50(3), 110-120.00(1) and 240.26(1) respectively. On August 12, 2025 Ms. Peters was arraigned in Bronx Criminal Court, released on her own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to September 2, October 23, and November 14, 2025 for the prosecution to file their Certificate of Compliance (COC). On October 30, 2025 the prosecution filed their COC and statement of Readiness (SOR). On November 14, 2025, after defense stated that they had no objections to validating the COC, the court noted sua sponte that the COC and SOR were unsigned, and only then did defense object to the COC being deemed valid, thereby precipitating the instant motion schedule.
This case comes before this court on a defense motion to dismiss under CPL § 30.30 alleging that the prosecution was not ready for trial because the prosecution's COC and SOR were unsigned. The prosecution opposes arguing that they complied with CPL 245.50 by providing a full and complete disclosure and the absence of a signature should not preclude the COC's validity.
The prosecution filed an unsigned COC and SOR via the Electronic Document Delivery System on October 30, 2025. At the November 14, 2025 appearance the standing prosecutor signed the documents dated October 30, 2025.
Since the top charge in this case is an A misdemeanor, CPL § 30.30(1)(b) requires the People to be ready within 90 days of arraignment (by November 11, 2025 in this case). The prosecution cannot be deemed ready for trial until they have filed a proper COC. CPL § 245.50(3); People v Fortty, 78 Misc 3d 1229(A) (Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023), citing People v Erby, 68 Misc 3d 625, 630 (Crim Ct, Bronx County. 2020).
The Criminal Procedure Law does not provide clear guidance on the need for signatures on COCs and SORs. However, where criminal courts are left without clear instruction, they generally apply the rules of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). See People v Merly, 51 Misc 3d 858, 859-60 (Sup Ct, Bronx County 2016). Pursuant to CPLR § 3022, "[w]here a pleading is served without a sufficient verification in a case where the adverse party is entitled to a verified pleading, he may treat it as a nullity, provided he gives notice with due diligence to the attorney of the adverse party that he elects so to do." CPLR § 3022, see McArthur v Town of Brookhaven Dep't of Hous. & Hum. Servs., 232 AD3d 609, 612 (2d Dept, 2024) ("Here, the respondents provided no evidence that they notified the petitioner of any alleged defect. Accordingly, the complained-of defect should be disregarded.").
The prosecution timely filed their COC and SOR and the defense never notified the prosecution of the defect. Because the defense failed to provide "notice with due diligence," the court accepts the belatedly signed COC and SOR.
The court validates the unsigned COC and SOR, and the defense motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is denied.
The foregoing constitutes the order and decision of the court.
Dated: February 3, 2026