ORDERED that this motion by the defendant is decided as follows: The defendant's motion to strike the People's Certificate of Compliance is granted. The defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 is denied. The defendant's motion for suppression of evidence is [*2]granted to the extent that Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearings are ordered. The defendant's motion for preclusion of statements is granted.

On June 27, 2024, this Court held the defendant's motion is abeyance pending a hearing wherein the People were ordered to clarify issues surrounding the disclosure of certifications and ethanol verification results for the dry gas reference standards used to calibrate the breath testing device utilized in the instant matter. The People were also to clarify issues surrounding the IAB materials provided. On March 3, 2025 that hearing was held.^[FN1]

Motion to Strike the June 12, 2023 COC

The defendant moves to strike the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") on the following grounds: 1) the People failed to timely provide the certifications and ethanol verification results from January of 2023 and May of 2023 for the dry gas reference standards used to calibrate the breath testing device utilized in the instant matter, and 2) the People failed to timely provide all IAB materials for law enforcement.^[FN2]

Certifications for Breath Testing Device

On the date of his arrest, the defendant submitted to a chemical breath test which was administered by the New York State Police ("NYSP"). CPL 245.20(1)(s) requires that the People disclose

"all records of calibration, certification, inspection, repair or maintenance of machines and instruments utilized to perform any scientific tests and experiments, including but not limited to any test of a person's breath, blood, urine or saliva, for the period of six months prior and six months after such test was conducted, including the records of gas chromatography related to the certification of all reference standards and the certification certificate, if any, held by the operator of the machine or instrument."

The People allege that in their initial discovery disclosure a link was provided along with the necessary information for the defendant to access and download the certifications and ethanol verification results from the NYSP website directly. On February 20, 2024 defense counsel sent a letter to the People regarding deficiencies in their discovery, including that he was missing the certifications and verification results. In that letter it does not appear that defense counsel pointed out that the link was not working, however in the defendant's Reply to the [*3]People's Affirmation in Opposition dated July 3, 2024, the defendant did make clear that the "certifications are not available from the disclosed link," (Def. Reply at 3) and provided screenshots from the website to support this argument. (Def. Reply, Exhibits E-M). Additionally, at the March 3, 2025 hearing, defense counsel represented that he informed the People that the link was not working many times, via phone calls and emails as well as in person — a fact that the People did not dispute. At the hearing defense counsel also informed the Court that on October 28, 2024, during an off-the-record conference between the parties and the Court, the formerly assigned Assistant District Attorney opened the link to the NYSP website and observed for himself that the link did not contain the aforementioned records. The People also did not dispute this.

The People highlight that the defendant has a duty to "within a reasonable period of time under the circumstances confer with the People regarding discovery deficiencies and/or seek relief from the court to resolve any discovery disputes." (Peo. Aff. in Opp. at 12). The People have been on notice since June 3, 2024 that the NYSP link was not working and have been aware since February 20, 2024 that the defendant was not in receipt of discoverable records. It is undisputed that the People did not provide the records until December 3, 2024. The People are correct in that the defendant is to make the People aware of any deficiencies in a COC as soon as practicable. See CPL 245.50(4)(b). However, the defendant's delay in raising any issues with a COC does not permit the People to then ignore those issues. Such a result would be inconsistent with the goals of CPL Article 245. This Court takes great concern with the People's inaction over the intervening ten (10) months from defense counsel's alerting them to missing discovery, including not checking for themselves that the NYSP link was working. The People concede that this discovery was in their custody or control and concede that the NYSP has always had the certification and verification records available upon request. The People argued at the March 3rd hearing that the defense counsel had not specifically requested these records until the instant motion was filed. Under CPL Article 245 the defense is not required to make such a request. Thus, although the defendant's motion came approximately nine months after the People filed their Certificate of Compliance, the People's delay in rectifying the issue of the missing discovery is the exact opposite of due diligence.

Considering the factors outlined in People v Bay, (41 NY3d 200 (2023)) this Court finds that the People did not exercise due diligence and therefore their COC is deemed invalid and illusory and the defendant's motion is granted. Consequently, their accompanying Statement of Readiness (SOR) is invalid.^[FN3]

CPL 30.30 sets forth the prescribed statutory time limitations for the People to be ready for trial. Where the defendant stands charged with an unclassified misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months, the People are required to be ready for trial [*4]within ninety (90) days. See CPL 30.30(1)(b). The commencement of this criminal action began on June 6, 2023, the date of the defendant's arraignment. See People v Stirrup, 91 NY2d 434 (1998). The People filed a Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and a Statement of Readiness ("SOR") on June 12, 2023 and subsequently filed a Supplemental COC ("SCOC") and SOR on December 3, 2024.

June 6, 2023 to June 12, 2023

On June 6, 2023 the defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The matter was adjourned for a hardship hearing. This adjournment is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(a). Thus, the People are charged with zero days.

June 12, 2023 to July 18, 2023

On June 12, 2023 the matter was adjourned to July 18, 2023. After the matter was called in court, the People filed a COC and SOR off-calendar. As discussed supra, the COC and SOR were invalid and therefore did not stop the speedy trial clock. Therefore, the People are charged with 36 days.

July 18, 2023 to August 16, 2023

On July 18, 2023 defense counsel requested a date to review discovery therefore this adjournment is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(b) and the People are charged with zero days.

August 16, 2023 to September 14, 2023

On August 16, 2023 defense counsel requested a date to review the discovery and speak with the assigned ADA and indicated that he waived making a speedy trial motion, therefore this adjournment is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(b) and the People are charged with zero days.

September 14, 2023 to October 26, 2023

On September 14, 2023 defense counsel requested an adjournment and indicated that he was gathering mitigation materials to give to the People and the matter was adjourned to October 26, 2023. The People are charged with zero days.

October 26, 2023 to December 4, 2023

On October 26, 2023 the current defense counsel was substituted to represent the defendant and requested a date to review the discovery, therefore this adjournment is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(b) and the People are charged with zero days.

December 4, 2023 to January 25, 2024

On December 4, 2023 the matter was adjourned for further conference. The People are charged with zero days.

January 25, 2024 to March 27, 2024

On January 25, 2024 the matter was adjourned with speedy trial waivers, therefore the People are charged with zero days.

March 22, 2024 to present

On March 22, 2024 the defendant filed the instant motion. As the matter has been in motion practice since then, all the time from March 22, 2024 to present is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(b). Thus, the People are charged zero days.

In total the People have utilized thirty-six of their ninety days of speedy trial time. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 is denied.

The defendant asks this Court to suppress any and all tangible and non-tangible fruits of the allegedly illegal search and seizure of the defendant. The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Mapp hearing is ordered. See Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

The defendant asks this Court to suppress statements made to the police on the date of her arrest. The People consent to a Huntley hearing and thus the defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Huntley hearing is ordered. See People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965).

The defendant alleges that the police did not have the requisite suspicion that the defendant was committing, had committed or was about to commit a crime when they encountered him. The defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a Dunaway hearing is ordered. See Dunaway v New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979).

The defendant's motion to preclude the People from introducing any statement(s) or identification(s) not noticed pursuant to CPL 710.30 is granted, provided that such statement(s) or identification(s), if any, are encompassed by the provisions of said statute. Parenthetically, the People are reminded of their obligation to demonstrate good cause for service of a late CPL 710.30 notice. (See CPL 710.30(2)).