In this DUI/reckless endangerment/reckless driving case, defendant Raymond Goggins moves to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance and dismiss this case based on a failure to timely disclose (1) materials associated with 911 calls, (2) a calibration report, and (3) unredacted impeachment materials. He separately moves for pretrial hearings and related omnibus relief. The People oppose in part.

As set forth below, the Court concludes that the discovery shortcomings in this case do not require invalidation of the certificate of compliance. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Court otherwise GRANTS Johnson/Ayala/Atkins/Mapp/ Huntley/Dunaway hearings, DENIES an Ingle hearing, and either DENIES the balance of the omnibus motion or refers remaining matters to the trial court.

Defendant Goggins was charged with driving while intoxicated and second-degree reckless endangerment, along with other offenses, arising out of allegations that on September 26, 2024, he swerved across two lanes of traffic, struck the wire fence of a home on Tremont Avenue, and collided with the bumper of a car parked at the residence. In the aftermath, a witness allegedly observed Goggins slumped behind the wheel, smelling of alcohol and with an unsealed vodka bottle in the front center console cup holder.

Goggins was transported to the hospital, where he was arrested that same day. A portable breath test administered at the hospital recorded .239 blood alcohol content. A chemical blood test (to which Goggins may have consented) yielded a result of .26.

Goggins was arraigned several days later, on October 3, 2024. The People served statement notice at arraignment, indicating that Goggins told a police officer, "I was parked, I believe I left my car somewhere around Bruckner. I didn't do anything." C.P.L. § 710.30(1)(a) notice.

The case was adjourned to November 19, 2024 for the filing of supporting depositions and discovery compliance. It was adjourned again to January 8, 2025 for the same reason.

The People filed off-calendar their certificate of compliance, a notice of readiness, and automatic disclosures on December 19, 2024. They also filed the two supporting depositions.

The People's certificate reflected disclosure of 56 categories of discovery material, but did not mention anything arising from 911 calls made on the day of the incident. Also absent was a portable breath test calibration report from July 23, 2024, although the certificate indicated that the document had been requested and that the People were awaiting a response. Finally, the People provided partially redacted material pertaining to one of the testifying officers without seeking a protective order or obtaining the permission of the court.

On January 7, 2025—the day before the next court appearance—defense counsel alerted the People that, according to the discovery materials themselves, EMTs and police had responded to the scene after receiving 911 calls. As mentioned above, these calls were not mentioned in the People's initial certificate, and materials associated with them had not been disclosed to the defense.

Later in the day on January 7, the People belatedly provided the defense with the 911 materials and the missing portable breath test calibration report, all of which were now listed in a contemporaneously filed supplemental certificate of compliance. As explained in the People's supplemental certificate:

The People served upon defense the 911 calls, Radio Run and the PBT Calibration report on defense. After reviewing of the numerous discovery documents handed over to defense counsel, the People, in error, did not include the aforementioned materials. The materials within the People's LDrive did not all transfer over to the OneDrive that the People provided defense counsel on December 19, 2024. However, once the People reviewed the documents, the People expeditiously turned over the materials and filed the Supplemental Certificate of Compliance all within the same day. The disclosure of these materials should not hinder the good faith and diligent efforts the undersigned counsel engaged in when filing the Certificate of Compliance.

The redacted impeachment materials were addressed the next day. During the January 8, 2025 appearance, Judge Bowen directed the People to turn over the unredacted material to the court for in camera inspection. Via order of January 13, Judge Bowen released a court-redacted copy of the material to the defense, largely maintaining the People's redactions.

In his counseled motion to dismiss, Goggins argues that the certificate of compliance must be deemed invalid, and the case dismissed pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30, because of the [*2]People's failure to timely disclose (1) the 911 materials, (2) portable breath test calibration report, and (3) unredacted impeachment materials.

Regarding the 911 materials, he stresses that while he does not "allege any bad faith on the part of the prosecution" and "appreciates the prompt disclosure of the 911 materials" after the People were alerted, the People's failure to review their own discovery disclosures reflects a lack of appropriate diligence. Defense's Motion to Dismiss at 9 (pdf pag.). Goggins relies on, among other cases, People v. Edwards, 77 Misc 3d 740 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2022) (Zimmerman, J.), and People v. Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132(A), 2022 NY Slip Op. 50445(U) (App. Term 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2022), for the proposition that the People's oversight offers no defense to their failure to timely disclose.

Regarding the calibration report, Goggins contends that the People provided no explanation for its belated disclosure, even though it was within the People's control. This, too, requires invalidation of the certificate of compliance.

Finally, regarding the impeachment material, Goggins argues that the People should have obtained a protective order prior to unilaterally redacting the material. Goggins concedes that Judge Bowen sustained most of the People's redactions—he acknowledges that Judge Bowen left "the prosecution's redactions substantively unchanged," Defense's Motion to Dismiss at 5 (pdf pag.)—but asserts that the People should not be rewarded for improperly redacting their disclosures, even if their redactions turned out to be appropriate. Judge Bowen's approval of the redactions also should not be construed as a finding that the People's unilateral redactions were of the type approved by the statute.

Goggins maintains that these defects all require invalidating the certificate of compliance. And if the certificate is invalidated, the span between arraignment ^[FN1] and January 8 (when motions practice began) exceeds the 90 days permitted by C.P.L. § 30.30, requiring dismissal of this case.

Goggins separately moves for suppression or, in the alternative, for a variety of hearings.

The People respond primarily to Goggins's motion to dismiss. As relevant here, the People argue that they demonstrated due diligence and that any mistakes in their initial round of disclosures should not invalidate their certificate of compliance. Regarding the three issues identified by the defense, the People respond that (1) the failure to actually upload the 911 materials, which they already possessed, was a mistake that they swiftly fixed after being alerted; (2) they were informed that the calibration report in question would have to be specifically requested, which they had done before declaring ready; and (3) their redactions were permissible and ratified by Judge Bowen.

Goggins has filed a short reply in which he objects briefly to the People's time [*3]calculation, which had assumed their certificate was valid.

The parties are familiar with the standard for resolving challenges to a certificate of compliance. In brief, when the top count is a class A misdemeanor, the People are required to be ready for trial within 90 days from the commencement of the criminal action. See C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). The People cannot declare ready for trial, however, unless they have also complied in good faith with their disclosure obligations under New York's revised discovery laws. See id. § 30.30(5).

To assess good faith, the "key question" is "whether the prosecution has 'exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery,'" which itself requires "reasonable" efforts to comply with discovery obligations. People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023) (quoting C.P.L. § 245.50(1)). And in responding to a motion to dismiss based on a belated, incomplete, or missing disclosure, the People always bear the burden of showing that they "did, in fact, exercise due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial [certificate]." Id. at 213.

Good faith and reasonable diligence are "case-specific" inquiries, and do not demand a "perfect prosecutor." Id. at 212. Relevant factors include:

the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor's office to comply with the statutory requirements, the volume of discovery provided and outstanding, the complexity of the case, how obvious any missing material would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence, the explanation for any discovery lapse, and the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery.

911 Calls and Associated Documents

The Court begins with the initial nondisclosure of the 911 calls and related materials. The parties do not appear to dispute what happened: the People possessed this material, but inadvertently failed to share it with the defense prior to declaring ready.

In arguing that this shortcoming invalidates the certificate of compliance, Goggins generally relies on cases where the People's failure to examine their own disclosures demonstrated a lack of diligence under Bay. But those cases are not entirely on point, as they involve circumstances where the People failed to timely obtain certain material, the existence of which would have been known had the People analyzed their own discovery disclosures. In Edwards, for instance, the People had not appropriately inquired about certain reports and other materials that the People's own disclosures (as well as the kind of case they were pursuing) indicated were available. See Edwards, 77 Misc 3d at 747 ("In failing to ascertain their existence by simply asking the arresting officer to inquire about all paper work generated in connection with this arrest—and specifically, paper work that the People should have known existed based on the allegations in the complaint—the People did not meet their burden of establishing due diligence."); see also id. at 746 (arrest checklist "alone would have put the People on notice to inquire about the existence of these reports"). Similarly, in Guzman, the Appellate Term faulted the People for not disclosing a dash cam video that "was apparently not provided in a discovery [*4]packet the police had given to the People," when the People were otherwise unable to explain why they "did not check the items sent to them against a list of the requested items, or against the police reports they sent to the defense." Guzman, 2022 NY Slip Op. 50445(U), at *2, 4.

What happened here is (notwithstanding an additional concern addressed below) closer to those instances where the People possess the relevant material, yet fail to timely disclose due to an oversight. Trial courts have generally (but not always) concluded that inadvertent errors or omissions, or technical mistakes in providing discovery, do not require invalidating a certificate of compliance if diligence is otherwise established. See, e.g., People v. Castelan, 83 Misc 3d 1271(A), 2024 NY Slip Op. 51073(U), at *5 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Kings Co. 2024) (Watters, J.) (collecting cases); People v. Moore, 72 Misc 3d 903, 904 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 2021) (D'Emic, J.) (concluding that an accidental omission of material from the People's OneDrive discovery folder was "an unintentional oversight"). But see People v. Buenaventura, 82 Misc 3d 1135, 1141—43 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Kings Co. 2024) (Tubridy, J.) (reasoning that omission from OneDrive folder demonstrated a lack of diligence, but concluding that the People were within the § 30.30 time anyway).

Here, the People admit that they failed to upload the relevant materials to OneDrive, but then fixed the problem upon being notified of the omission by the defense on what would have been the 96th day of the speedy trial clock. There appears to be no dispute that the People exercised diligence in obtaining the material, and they otherwise provided extensive discovery to the defense.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the relevant Bay factors counsel in favor of a finding of appropriate diligence. See Bay, 41 NY3d at 212; see also People v. Williams, 224 AD3d 998, 1006—07 (3d Dept.) (concluding that certificate was valid where, "[c]onsidering the illustrative due diligence factors specified in Bay, this record confirms that the People provided extensive, pertinent documentation to the defense," even though several items were belatedly disclosed), leave denied, 41 NY3d 1021 (2024).

That said, the Court has one significant reservation. The People's consistent explanation for the missing discovery has been a technical failure to copy the appropriate files to their OneDrive folder. The Court sees no reason to doubt the People's explanation—nor, for that matter, does Goggins, who specifically declines to claim bad faith.

But the People's technical-error explanation does not quite account for why the 911 material was also missing from their certificate of compliance. A mere technical error in transmitting the files to OneDrive should not also result in their omission from the certificate of compliance, unless the certificate of compliance itself is based on the directories and materials that are or will be uploaded to OneDrive.

The potential for danger is manifest. When the People inadvertently fail to disclose material that they have listed in their certificate of compliance, the defense is on notice that the material exists and was supposed to be disclosed. The defense can then let the People know that something is missing. But when material is possessed, not disclosed, and omitted from the certificate of compliance, the People have effectively shifted the burden to the defense to realize that something is amiss; and, as the cases cited by Goggins illustrate, it is emphatically not the defense's burden "to manage the People's discovery obligations." Edwards, 77 Misc 3d at 748.

Moreover, material that the People already possess is, by definition, material that they are not looking for as part of their continuing disclosure obligations, thereby reducing the likelihood that the People themselves will notice a technical oversight or fix the mistake without their [*5]attention being called to it.

But Goggins does not squarely raise this distinction here. Accordingly, and mindful of the party presentation rule, see Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 519 (2009), the Court does not resolve the case on this ground. The People should be on notice of this issue moving forward, however, as technical failures do not easily explain a concomitant omission from their certificates of compliance.

PBT Calibration Report

The Court also declines to invalidate the certificate of compliance based on the delayed calibration report. While the People did not provide extensive detail of their efforts to obtain it, they did explain in their initial certificate of compliance that their request was outstanding, and that they planned to disclose it upon receipt—which they did, on January 7. While additional details of the outreach would have been appreciated, the record establishes that the People's efforts here were adequate

Redacted Material

Finally, the Court declines to invalidate the certificate based on the improper preemptive redactions. The Court acknowledges that this area is in flux. See, e.g., People v. Coley, ___ AD3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op. 01945, at *8 (2d Dept. Apr. 2, 2025) (emphasizing that impeachment material relates to the subject matter of a case). But while the People should have sought a protective order prior to redacting the material, Judge Bowen's ratification of the redactions suggests that the redacted material was ultimately not discoverable. While the People should preemptively seek a protective order in the future—and should ask for more time to obtain one, if necessary, see C.P.L. § 245.70(2)—the failure to do so here does not warrant invalidating the certificate of compliance.

For the reasons set forth above, the People's COC and SCOC are deemed valid. There does not seem to be any dispute that, if the COC and SCOCs are valid, then the People are charged with 77 days from arraignment on October 3, 2024 to the filing of the certificate on December 19, 2024. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss under C.P.L. § 30.30 is DENIED.

Regarding Goggins's separate omnibus motion, the Court GRANTS Johnson/Ayala/Atkins/Mapp/ Huntley/Dunaway hearings.^[FN2] Because there was no vehicle stop, an Ingle hearing appears unwarranted. All Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia issues are referred to the trial court.

The foregoing constitutes the opinion, decision, and order of the Court.