By Notice of Motion filed July 1, 2025, the People move for an order pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 100.45 (1), 200.20 (2) and 200.20 (4) to consolidate docket numbers CR-001913-25BX, CR-003391-25BX and CR-003546-25BX. Although defendants Nespolini, Lisa Valerioti and Anna Valerioti do not oppose the motion, defense counsel for Nespolini moves to reserve defendant Nespolini's right to file a motion to sever if the dockets proceed to trial.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court files and relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the People's motion to consolidate the dockets and DENIES defendant Nespolini's application to reserve his right to sever his docket should the matters proceed to trial.

By Criminal Complaint dated February 11, 2025, defendant Nespolini was charged with violating Penal Law ("PL") §§ 120.00 (1) (assault in the third degree) and 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a misdemeanor and a violation, respectively. Specifically, the prosecution asserts that on January 24, 2025, following a verbal dispute, Mr. Nespolini intentionally harassed and caused physical injury to one of the complainants, J.P., the former boyfriend of defendant A. Valerioti. The defendant was arraigned on February 16, 2025.

By Criminal Complaint dated March 7, 2025, defendant A. Valerioti was charged with violating PL §§ 215.50 (3) (criminal contempt in the second degree), 120.00 (1) (assault in the third degree), both misdemeanors, and 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a violation. It is further alleged that on January 24, 2025, A. Valerioti intentionally harassed and caused physical injury to the second complainant, her former boyfriend's mother V.P., violated a temporary order of protection filed under docket number CR-018495-23BX, which was issued to V.P. on October 1, 2024, and valid until September 30, 2026, and that she acted in concert with defendant Nespolini to assault her former boyfriend, complainant J.P. The defendant was arraigned on March 9, 2025.

By Criminal Complaint dated March 13, 2025, defendant L. Valerioti was charged with violating PL §§ 120.00 (1) (assault in the third degree) and 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a misdemeanor and a violation, respectively. The prosecution alleges that on January 24, 2025, L. Valerioti acted in concert with her boyfriend, Nespolini, and her sister, A. Valerioti, to intentionally harass and cause physical injury to complainant J.P. which resulted in Nespolini striking J.P. in the face and A. Valerioti striking J.P. in the face and body multiple times. The defendant was arraigned on March 18, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Law § 200.20 (b) provides that "(e)ven though based upon different [*3]criminal transactions, such offenses, or the criminal transactions underlying them, are of such nature that either proof of the first offense would be material and admissible as evidence in chief upon a trial of the second, or proof of the second would be material and admissible as evidence upon a trial of the first" (see CPL § 200.20 [b]). Moreover, CPL § 200.20 (c) provides that even where the actions are not "joinable pursuant to paragraph (b), such offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar" (see CPL § 200.20 [c]).

The prosecution contends that consolidation is warranted where all three dockets concern the same parties, related offenses purportedly committed on the same date and times. Specifically, the People assert that, pursuant to PL § 200.20, joinder of the dockets will facilitate the public policy to encourage judicial process by avoiding duplicative, lengthy and overlapping testimony from the same defendants and, particularly, complaining witness, J.P. Hence, the People presume the reciprocal admissibility of evidence where J.P. is expected to testify about his relationship to all three defendants in all three cases which allege PL §§ 120.00 (1) and 240.26 (1). Thus, the underlying facts and allegation that defendants acted in concert provide the supportive spine which justifies consolidation.

The People chiefly rely upon the holdings in People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1 [1982] and People v Paraschiv, 169 AD2d 739 [2d Dept 1991] for the proposition that the prosecution has met its burden to establish joinder as the appropriate remedy to ensure judicial economy based upon the similarity of legal and factual issues sub judice. The Lane court noted that the decision to consolidate is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which should weigh the public interest in avoiding duplicative trials against protecting the defendant from undue prejudice (see Lane, 56 NY2d at 8). In assessing prejudice to a defendant, the Lane court adopted the standard used in Baker v United States, where that court required defendant to "make a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and [the] strong need to refrain from testifying on the other" (see Lane, 56 NY2d 8 citing Baker, 401 F2d 958, 977, cert denied, 400 US 965 [DC Cir 1968]).

Here, defendants Nespolini, A. Valerioti and L. Valerioti are all charged with acting in concert to harass and assault complainant J.P. on the same date, January 24, 2025, thereby violating both PL §§ 120.00 (1) and 240.26 (1). Consequently, all three dockets would require evidence which would be admissible in each action even if the dockets were tried separately, to wit: J.P.'s relationships with his former girlfriend, defendant A. Valerioti, her sister, defendant L. Valerioti and L. Valerioti's boyfriend, defendant Nespolini, and defendant A. Valerioti's knowledge and receipt of a valid order of protection in favor of J.P.'s mother, complainant V.P. Given the allegations at bar, the People have established threshold criteria for consolidation pursuant to CPL § 200.20.

Although none of the defendants opposed the People's motion, the Court's review of the record notes the absence of evidence which suggests that any undue prejudice would result from joinder, or why curative instructions would not ameliorate the possibility that a jury would be unable to properly assess the evidence (compare Lane, 56 NY2d at 8 with, People v Edwards, 46 [*4]Misc 3d 1206(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 50004(U), ****3 [City Court, Mount Vernon 2015] ["the compromise of a defendant's right to a fair trial free of undue prejudice as the quid pro quo for the mere expeditious disposition of criminal cases will not be tolerated"]). The Edwards court ultimately rejected joinder because where the People endeavored to consolidate criminal contempt charges with an indictment charging petit larceny, assault and harassment, "the differences between the charges outweigh the similarities" (see Edwards, 2015 NY Slip Op 50004[U], ****3). However, at bar there is no such discord (see Paraschiv, 169 AD2d at 740 ["(T)here was no substantial difference in the quantity of proof for the crimes charged"] [internal quotations omitted]).

Given the foregoing, the Court finds no basis to decline to exercise its discretion to join docket numbers CR-001913-25BX, CR-003391-25BX and CR-003546-25BX. Accordingly, the People's motion to consolidate for trial is GRANTED.

Additionally, by email dated July 14, 2025, defense counsel advised the Court that "Mr. Nespolini will not be filing an opposition to consolidate these dockets. However, if this case goes to trial, we ask to be allowed to file a motion to sever if necessary to guarantee Mr. Nespolini's right to a defense." The prosecution moved to consolidate the dockets for trial purposes and, thus, the Court finds defendant Nespolini's purported motion to reserve his right to sever meritless where, despite having an unfettered opportunity to proffer arguments against consolidation, defendant declined to do so. Defendant Nespolini's application to reserve the right to sever his docket is DENIED.

Upon review and consideration of the submission, court files and relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the People's motion pursuant to CPL §§ 100.45 (1), 200.20 (2) and 200.20 (4) to consolidate docket numbers CR-001913-25BX, CR-003391-25BX and CR-003546-25BX for trial and DENIES defendant Nespolini's application to reserve the right to sever his docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.