Defendant M. Lopez ^[FN1] was originally charged in 2024 with stalking, harassing, menacing, and other offenses arising out of an alleged two-year course of conduct directed at complainant J.C. Subsequent alleged contacts with J.C. led to two new open cases that charged, among other things, harassment and criminal contempt.

The People now move to consolidate the three open cases for trial. Lopez opposes. For the reasons explained below, the People's motion is GRANTED and the cases are CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL.^[FN2]

Multiple accusatory instruments against the same defendant can be consolidated if they contain offenses joinable under C.P.L. § 200.20(2)—made applicable in misdemeanor cases through C.P.L. §§ 100.15 and 100.45(1)—and if consolidation is otherwise warranted as an appropriate exercise of discretion. See C.P.L. § 200.20(4); People v. Watson, 281 AD2d 691, 693 (3d Dept. 2001). As grounds for joinder, the People rely on both § 200.20(2)(b), which "permits joinder of charges arising from different criminal transactions if proof of the first offense would [*2]be material and admissible as evidence in chief in the trial of the second offense," and § 200.20(2)(c), a broad provision that authorizes joinder of "offenses [that] are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law," and which is commonly used to join offenses charging "comparable criminal conduct in discrete incidents," People v. Pierce, 14 NY3d 564, 573 (2010).

On this record, joinder is authorized under § 200.20(2)(b), which is generally understood to codify the Molineux rule that prior bad acts cannot be used to suggest criminal propensity, but can instead be used to demonstrate, among other things, motive, intent, and absence of mistake. See People v. Davis, 225 AD3d 62, 69 (1st Dept. 2024). The People contend that the earlier case would be admissible in the latter two cases to establish why a valid order of protection was issued, and (presumably) Lopez's knowledge of the same, invoking the permitted Molineux purposes of completing the narrative, motive and intent, and absence of mistake. See People v. Sin, — N.Y.3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op. 03100, at *2 (May 22, 2025). These Molineux grounds can support joining an underlying offense with subsequent contempt charges. See People v. Warren, 81 Misc 3d 138(A), 2024 NY Slip Op. 50016(U), at *1 (App. Term 1st Dept.) (affirming consolidation in those circumstances), leave denied, 41 NY3d 944 (2024).

Defense counsel argues that joinder and consolidation would prejudice Lopez because of the multiplicity of charges against her. But the instrument in docket CR-021955-24BX already charges 14 separate counts, one involving a course of conduct spanning several years, so the addition of the few counts from the two newer instruments would not tip the scales. The charges across all three cases are not otherwise so complex that the jury would be unable to distinguish them. And any risk of potential prejudice could be addressed by appropriate instructions from the trial court to the jury. See People v. Sumpter, 191 AD3d 1160, 1163—64 (3d Dept. 2021).

Lopez does not meaningfully argue any other grounds for finding prejudice arising from joinder, and the People are otherwise correct that trying the cases together would serve the purposes of judicial economy. As the value and efficiency gains of consolidation outweigh the potential prejudice to Lopez, consolidation is warranted. Accordingly, joinder is authorized under § 200.20(2)(b), and consolidation is appropriate as an exercise of discretion.^[FN3]

The People's motion to consolidate is GRANTED and the three dockets are CONSOLIDATED. The People may wish to file a superseding accusatory instrument reflecting the consolidation of all three dockets.