Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, on the law, the branch of defendant's motion seeking to invalidate the October 5, 2022 certificate of compliance due to the People's alleged failure to timely procure a laboratory report and, upon such a finding, to dismiss the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds is denied, the accusatory instruments are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant's motion and for all further proceedings.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant was charged in a single accusatory instrument with driving while ability impaired by drugs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [4]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), and in separate accusatory instruments with, respectively, failure to surrender license or registration (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 340 [a]) and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1]). These actions commenced on July 28, 2022. In a CPL 710.30 (1) (a) [*2]notice from the same date, the People indicated their intent to offer as evidence at trial certain statements that defendant had made to the arresting officer, including, in reference to pills recovered from defendant's vehicle, "It's Adderall.^[FN1] I took it about 9 o'clock."

{**85 Misc 3d at 16}On October 5, 2022, the People filed a combined certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR). The discovery disclosure form annexed to the COC/SOR stated that the People had requested a laboratory analysis of the pills recovered from defendant's vehicle and that the People would turn over the results of the analysis once they became available. The People filed a supplemental COC/SOR on November 1, 2022, disclosing the laboratory report on the pills. The supplemental COC/SOR explained that the People had not previously disclosed the report because "[t]he People requested for the drugs recovered in the matter to be tested on 10/5/2022, and therefore the crime lab analysis did not exist at the time of the original [COC/SOR]."

By notice of motion dated November 1, 2022, defendant moved to, among other things, invalidate the October 5, 2022 COC due to the People's alleged failure to timely procure a laboratory report and, upon such a finding, to dismiss the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds. The People opposed. By order dated February 9, 2023, the District Court, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, granted the aforementioned branch of defendant's motion. The court reasoned that the People's failure to request or obtain a laboratory report before October 5, 2022, invalidated the COC from that date and that, in any event, the accompanying SOR was illusory because the People could not proceed to trial without the report. The court thus charged the People with the 96-day period from July 28 to November 1, 2022.

CPL 245.20 (1) (j) provides, in relevant part (emphasis added):

"The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control, including but not limited to: . . .

"(j) All reports, documents, records, data, calculations or writings, including but not limited to preliminary tests and screening results and bench notes and analyses performed or stored electronically, concerning physical or mental examinations, or scientific tests or experiments or comparisons, relating to the criminal action or proceeding which{**85 Misc 3d at 17} were made by or at the request or direction of a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity, or which were made by a person whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial or a pre-trial hearing, or which the prosecution intends to introduce at trial or a pre-trial hearing. . . . The prosecution shall not be required to provide information related to the results of physical or mental examinations, or scientific tests or experiments or comparisons, unless and until such examinations, tests, experiments, or comparisons have been completed."

In addition, CPL 245.50 (1) states, in relevant part (emphasis added):

"When the prosecution has provided the discovery required by [CPL 245.20 (1)], except for discovery that is lost or destroyed as provided by [CPL 245.80 (1) (b)] and except for any items or information that are the subject of an order pursuant to [CPL 245.70], it shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance. The certificate of compliance shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery. . . . If additional discovery is subsequently provided prior to trial pursuant to [CPL 245.60], a supplemental certificate shall be served upon the defendant and filed with the court identifying the additional material and information provided. No adverse consequence to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances; but the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as provided in [CPL 245.80]."

Finally, CPL 245.50 (1-a) provides (emphasis added):

"Any supplemental certificate of compliance shall detail the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance. The filing of a supplemental certificate of compliance shall not impact the validity of the original certificate of compliance if filed in good{**85 Misc 3d at 18} faith and after exercising due diligence pursuant to [CPL 245.20], or if the additional discovery did not exist at the time of the filing of the original certificate of compliance."

Thus, the People's automatic disclosure obligations under CPL 245.20 (1) (j) include the results of scientific tests related to the action that were performed at the People's direction, like the laboratory report at issue here. However, the People are not under an obligation to disclose the results of the testing until the testing is complete. The plain language of the statute indicates that the People need not delay the filing of their COC until the results of the test are available, but, rather, may file a COC and subsequently disclose the results of the test along with a supplemental COC, as the People did here (see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 210 [2023]; People v Turner, 71 Misc 3d 1219[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50412[U], *4 [Sup Ct, Monroe County 2021]). Moreover, "[w]hile CPL 245.20 (1) (j) requires the People to turn over '[a]ll reports, documents, records, data, calculations or writings' concerning scientific tests, no provision of the new discovery law requires the People to generate discovery material that does not already exist in order to satisfy CPL article 245" (People v Fisher, 71 Misc 3d 1051, 1053 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2021]; see People v Sanchez, 83 Misc 3d 671, 680 [Crim Ct, NY County 2024]; cf. People v Banks, 83 Misc 3d 559, 564-568 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024]). Consequently, the District Court erred in invalidating the October 5, 2022 COC based on the People's failure to request or obtain a laboratory report before October 5, 2022.^[FN2]

We also disagree with the District Court's conclusion that the October 5, 2022 SOR was illusory. "A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock" (People v England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994]). However, "a statement of readiness is presumed valid, and a defendant who challenges such a statement must demonstrate that it is illusory by showing that the People were not actually ready at the time they filed it" (People v Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 407 [2016]). Here, defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating{**85 Misc 3d at 19} that the October 5, 2022 SOR was illusory because the record supports a finding that the People could have proceeded to trial without the laboratory report (see People v McTyere, 215 AD3d 1274, 1274-1275 [4th Dept 2023]; People v Richardson, 192 AD3d 432, 432 [1st Dept 2021]; People v Hernandez, 187 AD3d 1502, 1503 [4th Dept 2020]; People v Zale, 137 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Hunter, 23 AD3d 767, 768 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Duffin, 28 Misc 3d 126[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51174[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]).

The parties agreed in the District Court and maintain on appeal that a 90-day statutory speedy trial clock applies to all of the accusatory instruments (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]), and we decline to pass upon the propriety of that conclusion (cf. People v Lovett, 40 NY3d 1018, 1019 [2023]). In view of the foregoing, the October 5, 2022 COC/SOR stopped the statutory speedy trial clock with fewer than 90 days chargeable to the People. Therefore, the District Court should not have dismissed the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the branch of defendant's motion seeking to invalidate the October 5, 2022 certificate of compliance due to the People's alleged failure to timely procure a laboratory report and, upon such a finding, to dismiss the accusatory instruments on statutory speedy trial grounds is denied, the accusatory instruments are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant's motion and for all further proceedings.

Garguilo, P.J., Driscoll and Walsh, JJ., concur.