Pending before the court is a C.P.L. § 30.30 motion to dismiss alleging that the prosecution exhausted its statutory readiness time. Under C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b], the prosecution's readiness limit here was ninety days.

The prosecution commenced this case against Ms. Antoine on April 10, 2024. Ninety days later, at 5:25 p.m., the prosecution filed their certificate of discovery compliance, (cf. C.P.L. § 245.10[1][a]), and stated ready for trial for the first time, (cf. People v. England, 84 NY2d 1, 5 [1994]; People v. Goss, 87 NY2d 792, 798 [1996]). On October 1, 2024, the defense moved to dismiss under C.P.L. § 30.30. They argued that the prosecution's statement of readiness was illusory because the prosecutors had improperly certified discovery compliance. On October 31, 2024, this court ordered supplemental briefs from each side and set one due date for both: November 14, 2024. The defense filed and served their supplemental brief on November 13, 2024. To date, the prosecution has never filed theirs, nor have they responded to any email inquiries from the court.

The prosecution's tactics and delay in this case are inexcusable. First, without explanation or permission, they disregarded the discovery statute's timelines for production. (See C.P.L. § 245.10[1][a]). Second, they stated ready for trial after business hours on the last day of their readiness deadline, rendering a "trial within the statutory period impossible." (See Goss, 87 NY2d at 798 [prosecutors may not state ready for trial at a time which would make "trial within the statutory period impossible"]).^[FN1] Third, their certificate of compliance was illusory and false. [*2]Despite purporting to "certify" that they had "disclosed and made available all existing known material and information subject to discovery," (Cert. of Compl. at 1), as the statute requires, (C.P.L. § 245.50[1]), they knew their certification was not true. Specifically, they knew they had not yet disclosed one police officer's memobook, another officer's body-worn camera footage, and the police department's scratch arrest report. Again, to be clear, this is all material that the prosecution knew existed and knew they had not yet disclosed. And it should go without saying: "The People cannot in good faith certify a statement that they know is false." (See People v. Henry, 82 Misc 3d 828, 829 [Crim. Ct., Queens County 2024]). These circumstances suggest the prosecution "certified" they had "disclosed and made available all existing known material" simply because they wanted to improperly toll their readiness clock. Finally, the prosecution failed to submit their supplemental brief as ordered by the court on November 14, 2024; failed to respond to emails from the court; and failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their radio silence at two calendar calls afterwards. (See, e.g., People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann, 197 AD3d 787, 788 [2d Dep't 2021] ["Thus, the People are chargeable with the time between court-imposed deadline to respond to the omnibus motion and the date on which the People actually filed a response."]).

In sum, the prosecution's certificate of compliance was false, their statement of readiness was illusory, and they unreasonably delayed proceedings on the pending motion. They are responsible for the delay between April 10, 2024, and October 1, 2024, and then from November 14, 2024, to today, January 10, 2025. That is 231 days, more than the ninety they are allowed.

Therefore, the case must be dismissed. (See C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]).

The foregoing constitutes the order and decision of the court.