City Court of Gloversville, November 9, 2020

Roger Paul, Public Defender, Gloversville (Brian Toal of counsel), for defendant.

Chad W. Brown, District Attorney, Johnstown (Katherine Ehrlich of counsel), for plaintiff.

In this violation of probation proceeding, defendant moves for an order directing discovery pursuant to newly enacted{**70 Misc 3d at 570} CPL article 245, which states "[t]he prosecution shall disclose to the defendant . . . all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case" (CPL 245.20 [1] [emphasis added]).

CPL article 245 states: "When a defendant is in custody during the pendency of the criminal case, the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations within twenty calendar days after the defendant's arraignment on an indictment, superior court information, prosecutor's information, information, simplified information, misdemeanor complaint or felony complaint" (CPL 245.10 [1] [a] [i] [emphasis added]).

While the New York State Legislature appears to have remedied the notable exclusion of felony complaints, misdemeanor complaints, and simplified informations from the discovery mandates of the now-repealed CPL article 240 discovery statute, they declined to specifically expand discovery to include violations of probation within newly enacted CPL article 245.

A close examination of CPL article 245 illustrates no contradiction, modification, or application, of the newly enacted discovery mandates, to the unrepealed provisions of CPL article 410. It remains widely recognized that proceedings upon violations of probation, conditional discharge and parole supervision are summary proceedings, requiring only that [*2]defendant be afforded an opportunity to be heard, and imposing a significantly lower burden of proof upon the prosecution. (See People v Jangrow, 34 AD3d 991 [2006]; see also People v Vedder, 172 AD3d 1539 [2019].)

Defendant's motion for court-ordered discovery is hereby denied.