On May 16, 2025, Michael Lightly (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), was arrested and charged with violating Penal Law ("P.L.") § 195.05[1]. Defendant was arraigned on May 19, 2025, and released on his own recognizance.

Defendant moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") §§ 250.4[c] and 30.30.[1][b]. The Defendant contends that the statutory speedy trial period expired because the People's certificate of compliance, filed August 12, 2025, was invalid under C.P.L. § 245.50[1].

Because the People exercised due diligence to comply with their discovery obligations, the certificate of compliance is deemed valid. Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 250.[4][c] and 30.30[1][b] is DENIED, as only fifty-seven (57) days are chargeable to the People.

On May 19, 2025, Defendant was arraigned on an information charging him with P.L. § 195.05[1], obstructing governmental administration in the 2nd degree, a class "A" misdemeanor. The case was adjourned to July 7, 2025, for discovery compliance.

On July 7, 2025, the Defendant failed to appear in court. A bench warrant was stayed until July 18, 2025. When the Defendant again failed to appear on July 18, 2025, a bench warrant was issued.

The Defendant voluntarily returned to court on August 4, 2025, and the bench warrant was vacated. The case was adjourned to September 15, 2025, for discovery compliance.

On August 12, 2025, the People filed and served, off calendar, an automatic disclosure form ("ADF"), certificate of compliance ("COC") and statement of readiness ("SOR").

On September 15, 2025, then-assigned defense counsel with The Legal Aid Society, Dominique Perez, was unable to appear, and another Legal Aid attorney appeared with the Defendant. Defense counsel was instructed to promptly confer with the assigned prosecutor about any outstanding discovery issues, as the following day was the thirty-fifth and last day on which the Defendant could challenge the validity of the certificate of compliance (C.P.L. § 245.50[4][c]). The case was adjourned to September 16, 2025, for discovery conference.

On September 16, 2025, Counselor Perez appeared, along with currently assigned defense counsel, Yifei He. Counselor Perez made the following record: discovery objections had been sent, via e-mail, to the assigned prosecutor on the afternoon of September 15, 2025; the Defendant had another open matter wherein he was represented by attorney Yifei He; Counselor He had agreed to take over the instant case so that Defendant would have consistent representation on his two open matters; and The Legal Aid Society sought to be relieved on the instant case (People's Opposition, Exhibit 5). Counselor He was assigned to the instant matter and requested a "good cause extension" pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50[4][c][i]). Counselor He stated that he needed time to review discovery and, if necessary, file a motion challenging the validity of the certificate of compliance. Counselor He was granted until September 23, 2025, to challenge the validity of the certificate of compliance.

By motion dated September 22, 2025, Defendant moved to strike the COC and demanded dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50[4][c] and 30.30[1][b], contending that the prosecution was not ready for trial within the statutorily allotted ninety-day period. The People filed their opposition on October 23, 2025. By e-mail dated December 5, 2025, the defense declined to file a reply to the People's opposition.

The prosecution must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action when the top count charged is a class "A" misdemeanor (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]).

The speedy trial clock is statutorily linked to the prosecution's discovery obligations under C.P.L. Article 245 (C.P.L. §§ 245.50[3] and 30.30[5]). Before the People may be deemed ready for trial, thus tolling the speedy trial clock, they must serve on the defense a vast array of material in their possession from over twenty enumerated categories (C.P.L. § 245.20[1]). The People must also file with the court and serve on the defense a valid certificate of compliance, certifying that they have exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and disclose all material subject to discovery (C.P.L. § 245.50[1]).

Pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50[4][c][i], a challenge to the validity of a certificate of compliance "shall be addressed by motion within thirty-five days of the service of the certificate provided that the prosecution has filed an indictment or information prior to filing the certificate of compliance." A motion challenging the validity of a certificate of compliance must include "an affirmation by the moving party that, after the filing of the opposing party's certificate of compliance, such moving party timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the opposing party or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached" (id.).

A COC's validity depends on whether the prosecution exercised due diligence to comply [*2]with their discovery obligations prior to the COC's filing, and it is the People's burden to demonstrate that they acted with such diligence (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]). Courts assessing the validity of a COC must consider an array of factors that speak to the People's diligence, including "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of Article 245; the volume of discovery provided and the volume of discovery outstanding; the complexity of the case; whether the prosecutor knew that the belatedly disclosed or allegedly missing material existed; the explanation for any alleged discovery lapse; the prosecutor's response when apprised of any allegedly missing discovery; whether the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied; whether the omission was corrected; whether the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention; and, whether the prosecution's delayed disclosure of discovery was prejudicial to the defense or otherwise impeded the defense's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial" (C.P.L. § 245.50[5][a]).

a. Defendant's Argument

The Defendant asserts that the People failed to exercise due diligence because multiple discoverable items were not timely shared, including the body-worn camera checklist, the event chronology/sprint report, the ICAD event inquiry, the command log, the pre-arraignment notification card, the prisoner holding pen roster, the prisoner movement slip, the interrupted patrol log, medical records from the Defendant being sent to the hospital, and unspecified "IAB logs" (Defense Motion at 7). The defense also argues that timely efforts were made to confer with the People regarding outstanding discovery, as prior defense counsel sent an e-mail to the assigned prosecutor with her objections within thirty-five days of the COC's filing (id.).

b. The People's Argument

The prosecution first contends that the defense did not make timely, good faith efforts to confer regarding outstanding discovery, as required by C.P.L. § 245.50[4][c]; prior defense counsel sent one-email, thirty-four days after the filing of the certificate of compliance, while current counsel did not personally confer.

Moreover, the People argue that they exercised due diligence to obtain and disclose all discoverable material prior to filing the Certificate of Compliance on August 12, 2025. The People assert that all discoverable material forming the basis for the instant motion were timely disclosed, with the exception of the prisoner movement slip and the pre-arraignment notification report. The People provide, as exhibits, screenshots of the OneDrive folder that was shared with both previously assigned defense counsel and current defense counsel, illustrating the documents' presence in the folder prior to the folder being shared (People's Opposition, Exhibits 8 to 15). The People note that they have followed up with the arresting officer regarding the prisoner movement slip and have not received a response as to whether the document is contained in the NYPD's case file; as to the pre-arraignment notification report, the prosecution argues that this document is administrative in nature and contains only information which is [*3]duplicated in multiple other administrative documents.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the defense properly conferred with the People pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.50[4][c], the certificate of compliance is nonetheless deemed valid.

In an e-mail to the Court's attorney, dated December 5, 2025, defense counsel concedes that the assigned prosecutor timely shared all items forming the basis for the instant motion to dismiss, with the exception of the prisoner movement slip, the pre-arraignment notification report, and "IAB logs." The same day, the assigned prosecutor responded, providing screenshots of IAB logs which had been shared with the defense prior to the COC's filing. The shared IAB logs document two substantiated claims against the People's testifying officer and are accompanied by a letter from the Bronx District Attorney's Office asserting that logs for all substantiated and unsubstantiated claims have been shared. Neither defense counsel's motion, nor defense counsel's e-mail, specify what IAB logs are purported to remain outstanding.

The two documents that both parties concede were not included in the shared discovery—the prisoner movement slip and the pre-arraignment notification report—contain administrative information that can be found in other items of discovery which were disclosed. The pre-arraignment notification card bears only the Defendant's name, the date and time of arrest, the arrest number, the top charge, and the arresting officer's name and precinct. The exact information contained in the pre-arraignment notification report is contained in a plethora of other discoverable documents. The prisoner movement slip contains the arresting officer's name and precinct, the top charge, the arrest number, the date and time of arrest, the cell number where the Defendant was housed before arraignment, the Defendant's sex, race, date of birth, and age, and the Defendant's mug shot—all information which is contained in other shared items, with the possible exception of the cell number. Moreover, a copy of the Defendant's prisoner movement slip is contained in his court file; copies of prisoner movement slips are routinely kept in the court's files in Bronx County Criminal Court. Should the defense need a copy of this document, it can be provided by the court clerk.

The prisoner movement slip and the pre-arraignment notification card are of no articulated or apparent substantive value to the Defendant. Consequently, these items' non-disclosure presents no evident prejudice to the Defendant or impediment to defense counsel's ability to investigate or prepare for trial. The volume of discovery alleged to be outstanding, two one-page documents, is minimal compared to the overall volume of discovery which was shared. Moreover, the People timely shared all other discoverable items, demonstrating due diligence in discharging their discovery obligations. The People's certificate of compliance, dated August 12, 2025, is deemed VALID.

The criminal action commenced with the filing of the accusatory instrument on May 19, 2025; the first day counted for speedy trial purposes is the next day, May 20, 2025 (People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). On July 7, 2025, the speedy trial clock stopped when the defendant did not appear for court (May 20, 2025—July 7, 2025 = 49 days charged).

Upon the Defendant's reappearance on August 4, 2025, the speedy trial clock resumed. [*4]The People's August 12, 2025, certificate of compliance, is deemed VALID and tolled the speedy trial clock (August 4, 2025—August 12, 2025 = 8 days charged). No chargeable time has since elapsed.

Fifty-seven (57) days are chargeable to the People.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §§ 250.50[4][c] and 30.30[1][b] is DENIED.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and the order of the Court.