Via a counseled omnibus motion, defendant R. Cabrera moves to dismiss on C.P.L. § 30.30 speedy-trial grounds by way of a challenge to the People's certificate of compliance ("COC"), and otherwise requests hearings and other relief.

Because the alleged discovery shortcomings do not require invalidating the COC, the branch of the motion seeking dismissal is DENIED. Huntley/Dunaway hearings are ordered. The People are directed to file the unredacted CCRB materials with this Court for in camera assessment. All other requests are either denied or referred to the trial court.

The parties are the primary audience for this decision, so some familiarity with the facts and procedural history is assumed. In brief, Cabrera is charged with third-degree unlawful fleeing of a police officer in a motor vehicle (P.L. § 270.25) and other offenses, based on allegations that he ran several red lights while on his moped, refused to stop when officers activated their lights and sirens, and then collided with a parked car.

Cabrera was arraigned on a desk appearance ticket November 21, 2024. The People filed C.P.L. § 710.30(1)(a) statement notice at arraignment.

Seventy-eight days later, on February 7, the People filed their COC and other discovery documents. By this point, the People had disclosed a wide variety of discovery, including 911 calls, body-camera footage, and the activity logs of several officers.

On March 6, or about a month later, defense counsel sent objections to the People. Counsel listed eight items as potentially missing, including the activity logs for two officers (which had already been provided, according to the People), the Pre-Arraignment Notification Report, arrest photos, and the NYPD Online Prisoner Arraignment Database. Counsel also objected to the partial redaction of disciplinary documents for three officers. See People's Resp., Ex. 3.

Four days later, the People followed up with an officer, who confirmed that several items did not exist or were not in his possession. See People's Resp., Ex. 5. The People sent several additional emails over the next few days, eventually confirming that most of the missing discovery did not exist. See People's Resp., Exs. 6—7.

This motion schedule was set in mid-March 2025, after which the People disclosed a small amount of additional material in late April and early May.

The branch of Cabrera's motion that seeks dismissal focuses on the failure to timely disclose (1) the Pre-Arraignment Notification Report, (2) the NYPD Online Prisoner Arraignment Database, (3) an arrest report worksheet, (4) the DAS Entity Report, (5) arrest photos, (6) an interrupted patrol log, (7) automatic vehicle location data, and (8) police dashcam footage. Relying generally on the NYPD patrol guide, Cabrera asserts that this material is generated in every criminal case, although he acknowledges that the People have asserted that none of the material exists or is available.

Cabrera also objects to the partial redaction of the impeachment material. Defense's Mot. at 6—9. Cabrera argues that these defects invalidated the February 7 COC and concomitant statement of readiness, requiring dismissal under C.P.L. § 30.30.

Alternatively, Cabrera requests a Huntley/Dunaway hearing on the noticed statement, preclusion, and other omnibus relief.^[FN2]

The People oppose dismissal, arguing that they demonstrated due diligence and good faith through extensive outreach to the NYPD both before and after declaring ready. They provide correspondence with the NYPD that predated the declaration of readiness, as well as the post-objection correspondence that confirmed the materials sought by the defense did not exist. The People also point out that they re-sent the DAS entity report when informed that the defense was not in receipt of it. See People's Resp. at 10—13; People's Resp. Exs. 1—8.

Regarding the impeachment material, the People argue at length that the unredacted reports are not discoverable, as the redactions were applied only to unfounded and exonerated investigations or to material that does not relate to the subject matter of the case. See People's Resp. at 13—24. Alternatively, the People ask that, given this unsettled area of law, the COC not be invalidated based on the redactions, and for the Court to instead conduct an in camera review of the documents to determine their discoverability. See People's Resp. at 24 & n.1.

Finally, on omnibus relief, the People consent to a Huntley hearing but oppose a Dunaway [*2]hearing. People's Resp. at 27. The People generally oppose other relief, although they have provided a bill of particulars and acknowledge their continuing disclosure obligations.

In his reply, Cabrera challenges the People's exercise of diligence item-by-item and factor-by-factor, contending that the Bay factors weigh against the People. See generally Defense's Reply. Again relying on the NYPD manual, Cabrera contends that many of the missing documents are created in every case and should have been created here. See, e.g., Defense's Reply at 7 (observing that the arrest report worksheet "is created by the NYPD in every arrest pursuant to the NYPD Patrol Guide Procedure 208-15"); see also Defense's Reply at 8 (asserting that arrest photos "are taken routinely after every arrest"). Regarding the redactions, Cabrera contends that recent appellate decisions have made clear that the People should not attempt to determine whether impeachment materials relate to the subject matter of the case. See Defense's Reply at 15—16 (citing People v. Coley, ___ AD3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op. 01945 (2d Dept. Apr. 2, 2025)).

When the highest count is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months, 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 with their disclosure obligations under New York's revised discovery laws. See id. § 30.30(5).

Under the now-familiar standard articulated in 2023 by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Bay, a COC is valid if it is the product of due diligence and good faith. People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023). Factors relevant to diligence are fact- and case-specific, and include the People's efforts to comply with their obligations, the volume of discovery provided, the complexity of the case, and the People's response to objections from the defense. Id. at 212. While the People bear the burden of demonstrating that they exercised due diligence, there is no "strict liability" rule for dismissal; the discovery statute does not require perfect compliance. Id. at 212—13.

While Cabrera's argument to the contrary is well-taken, the People have adequately demonstrated due diligence both before and after filing their COC, thereby meeting their burden under Bay.^[FN3] The record indicates that they reached out repeatedly to the NYPD before declaring ready, apprising their liaison of the time that had elapsed so far in the case and requesting specific outstanding items. The material disclosed prior to the People's declaration of readiness was reasonably extensive for this kind of offense, extending to activity logs for at least most of the involved officers,^[FN4] footage, and other documents.

It also appears that the "missing" material may not exist, although this point is vigorously disputed. The People represent that they asked the NYPD whether the various documents existed, and were told that they did not. Cabrera believes that most of these documents would be generated [*3]in every case, and should have been generated here; for instance, it is somewhat difficult to believe that no dashboard camera exists, because all modern patrol vehicles should be equipped with dash cams.

Whether the material does or does not exist cannot be definitively resolved on this record. The defense may be correct that some of this material should have been generated, or that NYPD policies would usually require it to be generated, but that does not mean it was.

Instead, all that can be assessed is the People's diligence in seeking out the material—and, on this record, the People appear to have demonstrated appropriate diligence. For instance, regarding the dash cams, Cabrera contends that the People should have "asked for [them] from the beginning" because "this footage would have shown if the police had probable cause to stop Mr. Cabrera and the events proceeding and following his arrest." Defense's Reply at 11. But the People did specifically ask for any footage in one of their initial outreach requests. See People's Resp., Ex. 1 (email from December 3 requesting, among other things, "Video - Dashboard Camera"). Moreover, the People followed up again after being asked to do so by the defense.

The impeachment material presents a closer call. As Cabrera points out, recent decisions such as Coley have clarified that, under the current iteration of the discovery law, material that would tend to impeach testifying witnesses relates to the subject matter of the case and must be automatically disclosed. See Coley, 2025 NY Slip Op. 01945, at *8—9. Aggressive redaction by the People here might violate that precept. At the same time, both review and sanction are frustrated by (1) the parties not specifying in their motions which officers are testifying or even what each officer did in the case, and (2) the absence of the redacted documents, meaning that it is difficult for any assessment to be made of whether the redactions were appropriate.

Accordingly, the People are directed to provide both the redacted and unredacted material to the Court for in camera review. The Court will not invalidate the COC based on the alleged impeachment material on this particular record. But People v. Zachary L., 86 Misc 3d 1209(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 50903(U), at *4—7 & n.5 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., NY Co. 2025) (Coleman, J.) (cautioning against overly constrained reading of the discoverability of impeachment material).

For the above reasons, the People appear to have satisfied their obligations under Bay before declaring ready, and their post-readiness response to the defense's objections further demonstrate their due diligence. See Bay, 41 NY3d at 211—12. The branch of the motion seeking dismissal is therefore DENIED. Nevertheless, the People are reminded of their continuing obligation to seek out any outstanding material, from other sources if necessary. And the People are ORDERED to provide the disputed impeachment material, in both redacted and unredacted form, to the undersigned for in camera review.

Because Cabrera allegedly made a statement in this case, and because the "stop" may have been the product of police activity or a seizure, Huntley/Dunaway hearings are warranted. While Cabrera does not request a Mapp hearing, the hearing judge should feel free to expand the reach of the hearing should any Mapp suppression issues become apparent.

Any Molineux/Sandoval/Ventimiglia/preclusion issues are referred to the trial court. Cabrera's request to file additional motions is DENIED subject to rights under C.P.L. § 255.20(3) to move for further leave upon good cause shown. All remaining branches of his motion are DENIED as either without merit or academic.