The Court has reviewed Defendant's motion dated May 18, 2025, seeking dismissal of the indictment or, in the alternative, preclusion of certain evidence pursuant to CPL 245.80(1)(a), together with the People's response, the defense reply, and the People's surreply.

The People filed their Certificate of Compliance (COC) and Statement of Readiness on July 12, 2024. The People filed Supplemental COCs and readiness statements on January 16, 2025, May 3, 2025, and May 5, 2025. Defendant argues that the People failed to provide timely disclosure of body-worn camera (BWC) footage, crime scene photographs, BWC audit logs, and certain identifying information about officers, thereby rendering the People's Certificates of Compliance (COCs) defective and consequently their initial July 12, 2024 Statement of Readiness illusory requiring dismissal pursuant to CPL § 30.30.

Upon review of the submissions and applicable law, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

The record reflects that the People made eight separate disclosures between July 2024 and May 2025, including BWC footage, officer reports, grand jury materials, and photographs. Although the People failed to provide crime scene photographs until May 2, 2025, the delay appears inadvertent. The photos were located in the Ithaca Police Department portal but not transferred to the shareable DEMS section. Upon realizing the omission, the prosecution acted diligently, in good faith, and promptly. Defendant's claim that he does not know who took the crime scene photographs that were disclosed to him on May 2, 2025, is without merit. On July 10, 2024, Defendant was provided with Ithaca Police Officer Maybee's supplement dated June 18, 2024, in which Maybee wrote that he returned to 211 Cleveland Avenue with a camera and photographed the residence. Defense counsel's claim of ignorance concerning the identity of the photographer is consequently without merit.

The Court of Appeals in People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023), set forth a set of factors for courts to consider when evaluating the People's compliance with CPL Article 245 discovery and when considering the validity of their Statement of Readiness. Courts should generally consider, among other things, 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. Id. at 212. Here, applying the Bay factors, the Court finds that the volume of discovery produced was substantial, the explanation for the delayed disclosure was credible and promptly addressed, and the lapse was not due to bad faith or willful neglect.

Moreover, belated disclosures should not invalidate a Certificate of Compliance that was made in good faith after the exercise of due diligence where the delay resulted from, for [*2]example, minor oversights in the production of material, delayed discovery of the existence of certain items, or a good faith position that the material in question was not discoverable. People v. Perez, 73 Misc 3d 171, 176 (Queens Co. Sup. Ct. 2021). Here, the Court finds the People's Certificate of Compliance to be valid, as the record reflects due diligence on the part of the prosecution, as evidenced by the extensive, voluminous documents initially provided. The belated disclosures—minimal, insignificant, and voluntarily provided once the People were made aware of the omission—were made in good faith. See People v. Macaluso, 230 AD3d 1158 (2d Dept 2024). See also People v. Williams, 224 AD3d 998, 1006—07 (3rd Dept. 2024) (COC valid despite three undisclosed items where People had provided "extensive" discovery before filing the COC, identified missing items at the time of filing, and acknowledged their continuing duty to disclose upon receipt).

The defense had notice as early as July 2024 that crime scene photos existed, as Officer Maybee's reports explicitly reference photographing the scene. The Defendant did not request clarification or supplementation prior to May 2025. There is no showing that trial strategy, witness preparation, or cross-examination has been materially impaired.

This Court acknowledges that there is no Third Department (or for that matter, any Appellate or Court of Appeals) precedent providing guidance with respect to whether body-worn Camera (BWC) metadata is within the ambit of required CPL Article 245 disclosure. This court is also cognizant, as both counsel for the Defendant and People are aware, that the trial courts are divided upon whether such BWC metadata is within the ambit of required CPL Article 245 disclosure. This Court concurs with Judge Guarino's thoughtful and sound analysis in People v. Rodriguez, 84 Misc 3d 685 (Bronx County Crim. Ct. 2024), holding that BWC audit logs are not automatically discoverable under CPL § 245.20. If a defendant has a good faith reason to suspect video tampering, they can request audit trails by motion, but there is no basis for blanket automatic disclosure and such automatic disclosure is not expressly contemplated within the statutory framework of CPL Article 245. Here, the Defendant has merely demanded metadata audit trails as a potential source of impeachment without articulating any good faith basis to suggest that the BWC is inauthentic or has been subjected to tampering. cf. People v. Ballard, 82 Misc 3d 403 (Queens. Co. Crim. Ct. 2023). This trial court agrees with Judge Guarino's assessment:

What is discoverable and what is relevant are not precisely the same thing, but the two concepts are close cousins. This court believes that insisting on the automatic disclosure of all body-worn camera metadata is contrary to the values of usefulness and reason and contrary to the goals of sharpening issues, reducing delays and prolixity. Discovery should be a process to facilitate the gathering of items material and necessary to prepare to try a case. It should not be an ever-expanding, Sisyphean burden meant to end in more speedy trial dismissals.*** This court does not see any virtue in re-writing statutes to impose yet further burdens on prosecutors. The court does not see any inherent virtue in dismissing cases. Id. at 691.

See also, People v. Aca, 2025 WL 1803207 (NY City Crim. Ct. June 27, 2025) (trial court held that body-worn camera audit trail logs are not subject to automatic discovery under CPL § 245.20 because they are system-generated metadata, not law enforcement reports or recordings related to the subject matter of the case. The trial court reasoned that compelling disclosure of such third-party metadata would create an unworkable burden on prosecutions and extend far beyond the Legislature's intent).

This Court also takes judicial notice of the recent statutory amendments to CPL Article 245, which take effect today, August 7, 2025. The amendments highlight that the scope of automatic discovery under CPL § 245.20 is governed by the concept of relevancy to the subject matter of the case. As amended, the statute clarifies that discovery is not intended to encompass all possible documents or system metadata that may exist, but rather only those materials that are "relevant to the subject matter of the case or to a witness's testimony." This codified emphasis on relevance aligns with longstanding principles of fairness and efficiency and echoes the concerns raised in People v. Rodriguez, supra., that automatic disclosure of all system-generated metadata—such as body-worn camera audit logs—would improperly expand the People's obligations beyond the legislative intent and impose unreasonable burdens on prosecution offices.

The Legislature's focus on relevancy, materiality and usefulness aims to restore balance to the discovery process and reduce litigation over speculative or tangential requests. Accordingly, a defendant must do more than speculate that undisclosed system metadata might yield impeachment material. It must make a good faith, fact-specific showing that the sought-after material is relevant to a genuine issue in the case, such as authenticity or fabrication. The Defendant has made no such showing here.

Even, assuming arguendo, that the People's CPL 245 COC was imperfect, the Court finds that, at most, 50 days are chargeable to the People. The action commenced on June 18, 2024, by filing of the initial felony complaint, but after the People could not satisfy their evidentiary burden at the preliminary hearing, the felony complaint was dismissed on June 21, 2024, thus stopping the speedy trial clock. Upon the June 27, 2024 filing of the sealed indictment, the speedy trial clock resumed. The People are correct in that the balance of time is excluded due to Defendant's motion practice, hearings, and periods following the sealed indictment. The People retain 133 days of chargeable time. (Here the People's § 30.30 allowable time is 183 days, i.e., the period between June 18, 2024, the commencement date, and six calendar months later, December 18, 2024). The Court finds that the People's initial Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness are valid. Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based upon alleged CPL Article 245 and CPL § 30.30 grounds is DENIED.

The People's cross-motion for an order directing reciprocal discovery under CPL § 245.20(4) is GRANTED. Defendant is directed to comply forthwith.

A suppression hearing was held on May 20, 2025. Officer Maybee testified. Maybee's BWC was received into evidence. Defendant's pre-Miranda statements at the scene of arrest concerning his presence at the residence are admissible. The People provided sufficient CPL § 710.30 notice. Defendant's statements were spontaneously uttered and not the product or response to law enforcement interrogation. Defendant's motions for preclusion and suppression are DENIED.

However, defense counsel is correct in that the People failed to provide any CPL § 710.30 notice concerning Defendant's post-arrest police station statement's concerning the earrings. The Court agrees that such statements must be precluded from the People's case in chief. Defendant's motion to preclude Defendant's police station statements is GRANTED. However, should the Defendant choose to testify, the People may use such statements for impeachment purposes should the Defendant open the door to such testimony.

Defendant has not raised any valid ground in his July 7th motion for bail reconsideration. The Court agrees with the People's analysis as set forth in their July 8th response. Defendant has been indicted on a violent felony offense. He has three prior felony convictions, eight misdemeanors and six failures to appear. The $5,000.00 cash bail and alternate bail forms set remain appropriate. Defendant's bail motion is DENIED.

To the extent that Defendant has raised any additional motions that are not expressly addressed herein, they have been considered and found to be without merit and are DENIED.

This matter is now jury trial ready. A plea reply Lafler hearing with Parker warnings is scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. A notice of appeal, if applicable, must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision.