The defendant, Tafari Dover, is charged in the above docket for an incident alleged to have occurred at approximately 5:30 P.M. on or about May 21, 2025. During this incident, Dover (hereinafter "defendant") allegedly assaulted complainant, obstructed complainant's ability to breathe, and unlawfully possessed a knife. As a result, defendant is charged with violating Penal Law §§ 120.00(1), 120.00(2), 121.11(a), 240.30(4), 110/120.00(1), and other related offenses. In connection with these charges, defendant asks this Court to dismiss the case for the People's failure to satisfy their speedy trial obligations pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") § 30.30(1)(b). In support of this motion, defendant argues that: 1) the People did not properly convert the accusatory instrument to an information because the People did not timely file a sufficient supporting deposition to facilitate conversion; 2) the People's failure to convert the complaint prevented them from validly declaring ready for trial; and 3) as a result, the accusatory instrument must be dismissed for violating the defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial. In the alternative, defendant seeks various forms of relief through an Omnibus motion. Upon review and consideration of each party's submissions, the court file, transcript from the appearance on September 5, 2025, and relevant legal authorities, the Court issues the below Decision & Order.

A. Background of events

On May 22, 2025, the defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance, and the case was adjourned. Off-calendar on August 18, 2025, the People filed a Certificate of Discovery Compliance ("COC") with a Statement of Trial Readiness ("COR"), and a superseding information with two supporting depositions. This superseding information added factual allegations that were not present in the original complaint. The first supporting deposition served and filed together with the superseding information was signed by Officer Johnathan Lopez on August 14, 2025. The second supporting deposition served and filed together with the superseding information was signed by the complainant, but it is not dated. This supporting deposition features this case's caption and docket number, and it indicates that the complainant:

"[R]ead the Accusatory Instrument filed in the above-entitled action and attached hereto and that the facts therein stated to be on information furnished by me are true upon my personal knowledge."

There is an italicized warning at the bottom of this document immediately above the signature and date lines that warns, "False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law." Though complainant affixed his signature there, the date line was left blank.

B. The parties' arguments

Defendant argued that the complainant's undated supporting deposition served and filed simultaneously with Officer Lopez's supporting deposition and the superseding information on August 18, 2025, was insufficient to convert the complaint to an information, and consequently, because the People cannot declare "ready" on a complaint, the accusatory instrument must be dismissed pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(1). Additionally, defendant argued that the People "had to rely on outside documents beyond the scope of the four corners of the accusatory instrument to convert the complaint." Namely, defendant argued that the People impermissibly provided an email to the Court (over defendant's objection) to establish the complainant signed the supporting deposition in connection with the superseding information. In opposition, the People submit that a date is not required on a supporting deposition to facilitate conversion, and similarly, that nothing on the face of the complaint or challenged supporting deposition is defective.

A. Conversion

Defendant is charged with "at least one misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony" (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]). A "speedy trial" motion must be granted, therefore, if the People are not ready for trial within ninety days (Id.).^[FN1] Without a waiver, a defendant has a statutory right to be prosecuted by an information in any misdemeanor case (C.P.L. § 170.65[1] [Consol.]; People v Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429, 431 [1974]). If a supporting deposition is needed to convert a misdemeanor complaint to an information, then filing any necessary supporting deposition(s) is a "jurisdictional prerequisite to prosecution of the action" (People v Worley, 66 NY2d 523, 526-527 [1985]; C.P.L. § 100.20 [Consol.]). For proper conversion, "every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof must be supported by non-hearsay allegations of such information and/or any supporting depositions" (C.P.L. § 100.15[3] [Consol.]).

Defendant's challenge here is focused on whether the undated supporting deposition facilitated conversion, as opposed to whether the elements were established. In support of his argument, defendant cited Slade to argue that this Court erred when it was given the email exchange between the prosecutor and the complainant because it is outside the four corners of the accusatory instrument. In Slade, the high court considered the implications of certificates of interpretation relative to conversion of misdemeanor complaints. Ultimately, the court reiterated its precedent that defects not on "the face of the accusatory instrument are latent deficienc[ies] [and] do not require dismissal" (People v Slade, 37 NY3d 127, 137 [2021] [citations omitted]). After doing so, the court held that a certificate of interpretation that is not referenced in or incorporated into the document cannot be used to create a facial defect that is otherwise undetectable on the face of the accusatory instrument (Id., at 138). Applied here, the implication [*2]is that external factors cannot establish hearsay defects that are not detectable on the face of an accusatory instrument. In other words, this Court must determine whether the challenged document was sufficient on its face and confine its review to the four corners of the instrument.

The C.P.L. outlines that a valid supporting deposition is,

"[A] written instrument accompanying or filed in connection with an information, a simplified information, a misdemeanor complaint or felony company, subscribed and verified by a person other than the complainant of such accusatory instrument, and containing factual allegations of an evidentiary character, based either upon personal knowledge or upon information and belief, which supplement those of the accusatory instrument and support or tend to support the charge or charges contained therein" (C.P.L. § 100.20 [Consol.]).

A supporting deposition supports or tends to support a charge or charges when it includes factual assertions that the deponent is aware of and adopts the allegations and charges in the accusatory instrument (People v Phillipe, 142 Misc 2d 574, 578 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1989]). Further, a supporting deposition may be verified in several ways, including when it contains notice that any false statement included in it is punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Law 210.45 (C.P.L. § 100.30[1][d] [Consol.]). An information is facially defective when it fails to satisfy these requirements (People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 139 [1987]). Notably, there is no requirement that a supporting deposition feature the date on which it was subscribed and verified (see People v Concepcion, 36 Misc 3d 551, 554 [Crim Ct, New York County 2012]).

The complainant's signed but undated supporting deposition features the required verification as outlined by the C.P.L. and included supra. Though defendant contested whether it was signed in connection with the superseding information or an earlier version, the deposition itself states that the complainant read and adopted the accusatory instrument that is "attached hereto," which is an unambiguous reference to the superseding information with which it was filed concurrently on August 18, 2025, as opposed to the original complaint. This Court finds that this supporting deposition comports with the C.P.L.'s requirements, and consistent with Slade, there is no hearsay or facial defect. Based on its review of the four corners of the accusatory instrument, therefore, this Court concludes that a valid conversion was effectuated on August 18, 2025, and thus, the People's same day COC and COR stopped the speedy trial clock.

B. Speedy trial calculation

Defendant was arraigned on May 22, 2025. That day is excludable (People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765 [1987]). Because the Court has found that conversion was valid, the People were able to declare trial readiness and stop the "speedy trial clock" with their COC/COR/ADF on August 18, 2025. The People are responsible for these 88 days. At the next appearance on September 5, 2025, defendant sought and received the motion schedule that is pending before the Court. This time is excludable (C.P.L.§ 30.30[4][a]). Because the total chargeable time to the People in this matter is 88 days, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby denied. There are no unresolved issues which warrant a hearing pursuant to People v Allard, 28NY3d, 41 (2016).

Defendant's remaining requests for relief are decided as follows:

1. Defendant's motion for a Wade/Huntley/Dunaway hearing is granted, insofar as a Wade/Huntley/Dunaway hearing is ordered.

2. The People are directed to inform the hearings/trial court whether they intend to cross-examine defendant with unnoticed statements so that a proper determination about a [*3]voluntariness hearing can be made. Similarly, the People are directed to inform the hearings/trial court whether any unnoticed statement or identification evidence exists so that a proper determination about preclusion can be made.

3. The parties are expected to comply with their statutory and constitutional discovery obligations. To the extent the People have not previously done so, the People are directed to preserve and provide pre-trial disclosure of all materials subject to C.P.L. §§ 245.20, 200.95, and 245.55 that are not subject to delayed disclosure.

4. The People are reminded to adhere to their Brady/Vilardi obligations. Defendant's request that the People file an additional certificate of compliance to that effect under C.P.L. § 245.35(3) is denied.

5. The defendant indicated in his moving papers that he intends to testify in this matter. Accordingly, Sandoval and Molineux hearings shall be conducted by the hearings and/or trial court.

6. Defendant's reservation to make additional motions as necessary is granted to the extent that they are based on new facts or law that "defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised" pursuant to the time requirements found in C.P.L. § 255.20(3).

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.