The defendant, Luis Miguel Jimenez Pacheco, submitted an omnibus motion dated March 28, 2025, for the following: (1) Inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal or reduction of the charges for insufficient evidence or other defects, pursuant to CPL §§ 210.20, 210.25, 210.30, and 210.35; (2) Preclusion of unnoticed statement and identification testimony; (3) Preclusion of evidence of defendant's prior criminal convictions and bad acts pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974] and People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]; (4) An Order finding the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and Statement of Readiness invalid and charging the People with speedy trial time under CPL § 30.30; (5) Reservation of the right to make additional motions. The People filed their response on April 18, 2025.

The defendant's motion to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted to the extent that the Court has inspected the grand jury minutes. The defendant's motion for release of the grand jury minutes is granted to the extent authorized by law and not yet provided by the People. The defendant's motion to release the charge submitted to the grand jury is denied since the defendant has failed to demonstrate any compelling need for such action and the Court is able to determine the motion without assistance (see CPL § 210.30[3]).

The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, to reduce the counts therein, is denied since the evidence adduced before the grand jury was legally sufficient to sustain the indictment. Moreover, the assistant district attorney properly instructed the grand jury on the relevant law (see People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389 [1980]). Lastly, the presentation of the case to the grand jury was not defective as a matter of law. The minutes reveal that a quorum of the grand jurors were present during the submission of evidence and at the time that the assistant district attorney instructed the grand jury on the law. No unauthorized person within the meaning of CPL §190.25 was present at any time during the proceedings (see People v Sayavong, 83 NY2d 702 [1994]). Additionally, no irregularity that would impair the integrity of the grand jury occurred (see People v Adessa, 89 NY2d 677 [1997]; People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400 [*2][1996]).

The defendant's motion seeking preclusion of unnoticed statement and identification evidence is granted to the extent that the People, absent a showing of good cause, are precluded from introducing any statement or identification evidence for which CPL § 710.30[1][a] or [1][b] notice was required but not timely served, the determination of which is reserved for the trial court.

The People are directed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the existence of any witnesses who observed the defendant, either at the time or place of the crime, or on some other occasion relevant to the case, and who have not previously identified the defendant in an out-of-court identification procedure but may identify him for the first time in court at trial, and to promptly notify the defendant (see People v Perdue, 41 NY3d 245, [2023]). Any challenge to the reliability of identification testimony of any such witness is reserved to the trial court.

The defendant's motion to preclude the People from introducing evidence of his prior bad acts on their direct case, or upon cross-examination of the defendant at trial, or, in the alternative, for a Sandoval/Molineux hearing is reserved to the trial court (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974], People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]).

The People are directed to make every effort to preserve all 911 calls, radio runs, sprint reports, surveillance footage, body-worn camera footage, and any other recordings that are relevant to this case and make them available to the defendant at the appropriate time as prescribed by CPL § 245.20[1][g]. Additionally, the People are reminded of their legal and ethical duty to disclose and deliver favorable evidence under CPL 245.20[1][k] (see Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 [1972]; Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]; People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67 [1990]; People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 [1981], and their progeny under the United States and New York constitutions). The People are also reminded of their obligation under People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961].

The People are reminded of their continuous duty to maintain the flow of information under CPL § 245.55.

The People are reminded of their duty to make available to the defense additional material or information, which they would have been under a duty to disclose had it been known to them at the time of a previous discovery obligation or discovery order pursuant to any provisions of CPL art. 245, if and when such material or information comes into their possession, control, or knowledge (see CPL § 245.60).

Defense counsel is reminded of their continuing professional obligation to provide effective assistance of counsel and to meet defendant's statutory discovery and notice obligations.

The defendant's motion reserving the right to make further motions is granted to the extent permitted by CPL § 255.20.

On February 27, 2020, Queens County Supreme Court, Criminal Term Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas ^[FN1] put forth an administrative order pursuant to CPL §245.35[1], which requires the parties to diligently confer with each other prior to seeking judicial intervention (see February 27, 2020, Administrative Order of Administrative Judge of the Queens County [*3]Supreme Court (Criminal Term) issued pursuant to CPL § 245.35[1]; People v. Bonifcacio, 179 AD3d 977 [2d Dept 2020] [Second Department recognizes the ability of trial courts to issue orders like the one issued by Judge Zayas]). Further, CPL §245.50[4][b], as relevant to the instant case, puts an affirmative obligation upon the defendant to notify the prosecution regarding any deficiencies in the People's COC as soon as practicable.

While the defendant now challenges the People's COC on the grounds that it was filed in bad faith and with a lack of due diligence, there is nothing in the defendant's moving papers that indicates that he has complied with Judge Zayas' Administrative Order or CPL §245.50[4][b]. In contrast, the People affirm that counsel for the defendant has not conferred with the assigned prosecutor as to any alleged deficiency or defect in the People's COC. Indeed, a cursory review of the submissions of the parties makes clear that many, if not most, of the items that the defendant is seeking either do not exist or relate to issues that could have easily been resolved had the defendant diligently conferred with the People prior to filing the instant motion. Avoiding such unnecessary judicial intervention is precisely the reason Judge Zayas generated the February 27, 2020 Administrative Order.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the People's COC and charge the People with the speedy trial time under CPL § 30.30 is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew should a genuine issue remain after the parties diligently confer.

Pursuant to Zayas' Administrative Order, the defendant is directed to diligently confer as soon as practicable with the assigned prosecutor as to any discovery disputes and to promptly alert the People to any potential defect or deficiency in the COC of which he is aware (see id.; CPL §§ 245.35[1] and 245.50[4][b]). If, after having complied with the foregoing, a dispute remains as to any alleged missing discovery, the defendant may renew the instant motion to strike the COC, but, in that event, must do so as soon as practicable (see CPL § 245.50[4][c]; People v Seymour, ___Misc 3d___, 2024 NY Slip Op 24234 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2024]; People v. Sotos, 2024 NYLJ LEXIS 2960).

This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the court.