The defendant, David Vera, has submitted an omnibus motion, dated September 22, 2025, seeking: inspection and release of Grand Jury minutes and dismissal or reduction of the indictment; an order invalidating the People's certificate of compliance as improper; suppression of evidence; preclusion of evidence; Sandoval/Molineux demands; several discovery related orders; and leave to file further motions. The People's response, dated October 10, 2025, consents to some of the relief sought and opposes other relief.

Defendant's motion to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted. The minutes reveal that [*2]a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the prosecutor instructed the grand jurors on the law. The indictment substantially conforms to the requirements set forth in CPL § 200.50. The instructions were not defective as a matter of law and the proceedings were proper. Upon inspection of the grand jury minutes and exhibits, this court found the evidence to be legally sufficient to support all counts of the indictment. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce the counts of the indictment is denied.

The defendant has also moved to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL § 210.20(1)(a) and CPL § 200.50(8) on the ground that the indictment is defective because the copy provided to defense counsel lacks the signature of the grand jury foreperson. The People oppose the motion.

The indictment filed with the court bears the signature of the foreperson. The defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground is denied.

The defendant is charged with two counts of Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 120.05[2]) and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law § 265.01[2].)

These charges arose from a dispute between the defendant and Christian Lozada and Xavier Sayas. On May 11, 2025, Mr. Lozada was at club with Mr. Sayas and Yorli Ubarnes, drinking and dancing. During the course of the evening, the police were called to the club, but left without making any arrests. As the night moved on to the morning of May 12th, at about 1:00 a.m., the defendant took offense that Mr. Lozada was dancing with his wife. The defendant confronted Mr. Lozada in the club, punching him in the face. The assault on Mr. Lozada then spilled onto the street where the defendant allegedly cut him on his chest and leg with a sharp object. Mr. Lozada's friends followed Mr. Lozada and the defendant onto the street to assist Mr. Lozada. During that encounter, the defendant attacked and cut Mr. Sayas with a sharp object. When Police Officer Nicholas Detore arrived at the scene, he saw the defendant and two other men standing near each other. The defendant was holding a screwdriver, about 14 inches long, with the pointed end toward Mr. Sayas. Police Officer Detore then arrested the defendant. After the defendant was in custody, Mr. Lozada punched the defendant; Mr. Lozada was then arrested. (GJ tr, 7-18) The defendant also maintains, and it is undisputed by the People, at about the time he was arrested, Mr. Sayas and Mr. Ubarnes were also arrested.

The defendant now moves to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR) served on July 17, 2025. The People oppose the motion, arguing it untimely and fails to meet the mandatory good faith conferral prerequisite.

The defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint on May 12, 2025, bail was set and the case was adjourned to May 16, 2025, for grand jury action. In the meantime, defendant posted bail.

On May 16, 2025, the defendant was indicted and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court for defendant and on June 26, 2025, the defendant was arraigned on the charges and entered a not guilty plea. The case was adjourned to August 28, 2025, for the People to file their certificate of compliance (COC) and statement of readiness (SOR).

In the meantime, on July 17, 2025, the People filed their COC and SOR. Thereafter, the People filed four supplemental COCs. The first three supplemental COCs were dated respectively July 18, 2025, July 25, 2025 and August 6, 2025.

On August 13, 2025, the defendant and his defense counsel made a proffer pursuant to an immunity agreement to two prosecutors from the Queens District Attorney's Office in [*3]connection with his prosecution and the prosecutions of Mr. Lozada, Mr. Sayas or Mr. Ubarnes.

On August 28, 2025, the court set a motion schedule for the defendant to file his motions by September 22, 2025.

On September 17, 2025, defense counsel received a response from the prosecutors. One of the prosecutors informed defense counsel by email that due to the inability to verify key portions of the defendant's story and credibility concerns they had of him, the case in which he was the complainant would not be presented to a grand jury.

On Thursday, September 18, 2025, at about 5:21 p.m., the defense counsel emailed to the prosecutor a list of 25 discovery items that were missing based on his "preliminary review of the discovery in this matter... " (Affirmation of defendant's attorney, Exhibit A).

On Friday, September 19, 2025, the prosecutor emailed a response to the defense attorney. She also served and filed the People's fourth SCOC with one of the missing discovery items, Mr. Lozada's waiver of immunity, that she overlooked. In the prosecutor's response, she indicated that for nine of the discovery items defense counsel claimed to be missing, she needed to reach out to the relevant police officers or re-request those documents (see affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, items 1-5, 8-9, 11 and 19). For 9 other items, including a refusal of medical treatment form signed by the defendant's wife, the roll call log, the interrupted patrol log, the prisoner holding pen roster, device audit logs, unredacted IAB logs, IAB log attachments, the arrest documents of Mr. Ubarnes who the prosecutor maintained was neither accused by the defendant of any crimes nor accused the defendant of any crimes, and the material created as a result of the proffer agreement were work product and were not discoverable (see affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, items 6, 13-15, 18, 20, 22-23, 25).

For the police paperwork related to the arrests of Mr. Lozada and Mr. Ubarnes, the prosecutor previously disclosed the material related to the subject matter of the charges, but declined to disclosed other paperwork unrelated to the charges. (affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, items 16-17) The prosecutor also indicated that while the names of the EMS personnel who responded to the scene were noted in the medical records previously disclosed, she would subpoena their contact information from FDNY/EMS. (Affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, item 10) Relatedly, the prosecutor also informed defense counsel that she previously subpoenaed the Ambulance Call Records from FDNY/EMS, the subpoena itself had been disclosed to the defense in the COC, and that she was awaiting those records. (see affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, item 21) As for the expert witness documents, the prosecutor said the CV and report/summaries would be shared before the trial date was set. (affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, item 24). As for the activity logs for two police officers, the prosecutor said those documents were previously shared with the People's COC. Finally, the prosecutor informed defense counsel that Mr. Lozada's signed waiver of immunity that was entered as an exhibit before the grand jury was disclosed in the attached SCOC.(affirmation of defendant's attorney, exhibit A, item 7).

On Monday, September 22, 2025, the defendant filed his omnibus motion that included an order invalidating the People's certificate of compliance and statement of readiness, asserting that the People failed to provide material under several categories of discovery required by CPL § 245.20(1).

The threshold issue is whether the defendant's motion, filed on September 22, 2025, [*4]complies with the statutory deadline of CPL § 245.50(4)(c). Under the 2025 amendments to Article 245, a challenge to a COC must be made by motion within 35 days of the filing of the certificate, unless a "good cause" extension is granted or there is a "material change in circumstances." CPL § 245.50(4)(c). In this case, for cases pending on the effective date, the 35 day window ran from August 7, 2025, expiring on September 11, 2025.

This court addresses first the 24 items listed in the defendant's email conferral of September 18, 2025. These 24 missing items - including police reports, and related materials — related directly to the People's COC filed on July 17, 2025, were known or should have been known to the defense upon receipt of the People's COC and constitute "a potential defect or deficiency related to a certificate of compliance or supplemental certificate of compliance." CPL 245.50(4)(b). Because the defendant did not move for a good cause extension prior to the expiration of the 35 day period, his motion as to these 24 items, filed on September 22, 2025, is therefore untimely.

This court rejects any interpretation that general motion deadlines under CPL § 255.20 should override the specific deadline established in CPL 245.50(4)(c) in the absence of a good cause extension granted by a court. If this court permitted a general motion schedule to govern discovery challenges, the specific 35 day deadline enacted in 2025 would be rendered entirely superfluous. This specific provision was intended to curb "laying-in-wait" tactics and must be enforced absent a good cause request for an extension of time.

Even if the motion was timely, it is procedurally defective for lack of a "timely good faith conferral." CPL § 245.50(4)(c) now requires an affirmation that the moving party conferred in "good faith" to resolve disputes prior to filing. As the statute sets forth a 35 day deadline for the filing of any motion to challenge a COC, the conferral must provide the People time to review the items that are missing, re-connect with witnesses and then communicate back to defense counsel before the deadline. As noted in People v Whitney, 2025 WL 3265396 (Criminal Court Bronx County 2025), "The aim is to provide enough time for conferral to resolve the discovery issues , or significantly narrow their scope."

Defense Counsel emailed a list of 25 items at 5:21 p.m. on September 18, 2025, merely one business day before the filing deadline on Monday, September 22, 2025. In Defense Counsel's view, "[he] timely conferred with the prosecution and alerted it to these deficiencies." (Affirmation of defendant's attorney at 14, ¶ 14) This court disagrees. A conferral is not a sincere good faith attempt at resolution if it is intended from the outset to set the stage for a motion to invalidate. This last minute effort at conferral is not timely and does not satisfy the "good faith" the statute contemplates. (see Whitney at 4, "This last minute conferral, raising 31 varied items of discovery a week before the COC challenge deadline, was clearly untimely, thwarting the informal resolution of discovery issues that the statute encourages.")

On September 17, 2025, the People, by email, informed the defendant that "[w]e investigated the matter and have been unable to verify key portions of your clients (sic) story. Because of this we have concerns about your clients (sic) credibility and therefore, at this time, we will not be presenting this case to the Grand Jury." (Affirmation of defendant's attorney at 66, ¶¶ 138-141)

The defendant requested in his conferral email of September 18, 2025, any "documents/paperwork" generated from the People's investigation. The prosecutor responded by [*5]email on September 19, 2025. She asserted that any notes taken by the two assistant district attorneys who were present during the proffer and later investigated the defendant's story were not discoverable because it constituted work product. (affirmation of defendant's attorney, Exhibit A prosecutor's email of September 19, 2025)

Under CPL § 245.65, work product is strictly limited to "those portions of records, reports, correspondence, memorandum, or internal documents" which are "the legal research, opinions, theories or conclusions" of the prosecutor. This privilege does not cover factual statements, witness statements, or the results of the People's investigation. The People's blanket assertion of 'work product' regarding the proffer investigation is overbroad. While the prosecutor's personal impressions of credibility may be shielded, the underlying factual results, witness statements, and any police communications generated during the verification to the subject matter of the proffer relate to the subject matter of the case pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20(1) and 245.40(1)(k). Since the People's investigation led the People to doubt the defendant's credibility, any comparison of the defendant's story against police reports, BWC or surveillance footage or statements made by other witnesses that have not been previously disclosed, makes those records related to this case discoverable.

Moreover, this court finds the investigative files, notes and any police and witness statements related to the People's investigation of the defendant's proffer constitute a "material change in circumstances" under CPL §245.50(4)(c)(ii). Because these materials were generated or became relevant following the People's initial COC and supplemental COCs filed before August 7, 2025, they are not subject to the September 11, 2025, deadline.

The People's discovery efforts, viewed holistically, satisfy Article 245. The People acted in good faith in investigating the defendant's proffer and disclosed their determination once the investigation concluded. While the results of the proffer investigation must be disclosed, their omission does not invalidate the July 17, 2025, COC and the subsequently filed supplemental COCs.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance is denied in its entirely. The People are ordered to disclose all remaining investigative results related to the August 13, 2025, proffer within seven business days of this decision by filing a supplemental certificate of compliance. If the People determine, consistent with this court's decision, that no additional records exists related to the August 13, 2025, proffer investigation, the People are directed to file a supplemental affirmation affirming that result.

The defendant's motion to suppress any physical evidence is granted to the extent that a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is ordered.

The defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence is granted to the extent that a Wade/Dunaway hearing is ordered.

The defendant's motion to preclude any unnoticed statements or identification evidence pursuant to CPL§§60.45, 710.20(3) and 710.43(3) is denied. The determination of whether such evidence has been properly noticed is referred to the discretion of the hearing and trial courts before which any such evidence comes to light.

The defendant's request for a Sandoval/Molineux hearing and, ultimately, the preclusion of evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are reminded that the [*6]disclosure of any Sandoval and Molineux evidence that they intend to introduce at trial shall be made in accordance with the time frame set forth in CPL § 245.10(1)(b) and 245.20(3).

In his motion, the defendant has moved for a number of orders relating to discovery. First, the defendant has requested the preservation and production of all radio and other recorded police communications relating to this case. This motion is denied as moot, because the People certified in their Certificate of Compliance dated July 17, 2025, that they disclosed all 911 calls, police body-worn camera recordings and radio runs to the defense. Should the People become aware of any additional recorded police communications, they are directed to preserve and disclose such evidence to the defense in a timely fashion in accordance with their obligations pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1)(g).

Second, the defendant's request for a Bill of Particulars is granted to the extent provided by the People pursuant to CPL § 200.95.

Third, the defendant demand for the production of all discovery pursuant to CPL § 245.20 is denied, as the People have certified that they satisfied their automatic discovery obligations pursuant to CPL§ 245.20(1) in their certificate of compliance.

This court issues this order as both a reminder and a directive that counsel uphold their constitutional, statutory and ethical responsibilities in the above-captioned proceeding:

To the Prosecutor:

The District Attorney and the Assistant responsible for the case, or, if the matter is not being prosecuted by the District Attorney, the prosecuting agency and its assigned representative, is directed to make timely disclosures of information favorable to the defense as required by Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 (1972), People v Geaslen, 54 NY2d 510 (1981), and their progeny under the United States and New York State constitutions, and pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) article 245 and Rule 3.8(b) of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct, as described hereafter.

• The District Attorney and the Assistant responsible for the case have a duty to learn of such favorable information that is known to others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police, and should therefore confer with investigative and prosecutorial personnel who acted in this case and review their and their agencies' files directly related to the prosecution or investigation of this case.

• Favorable information could include, but is not limited to:

a) Information that impeaches the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness, including (i) benefits, promises, rewards or inducements, express or tacit, made to a witness by a law enforcement official or law enforcement victim services agency in connection with giving testimony or cooperating in the case; (ii) a witness's prior inconsistent statements, written or oral; (iii) a witness's prior convictions and uncharged criminal conduct; (iv) information that tends to show that a witness has a motive to lie to inculpate the defendant, or a bias against the defendant or in favor of the complainant or the prosecution; and (v) information that tends to show impairment of a witness's ability to perceive, recall, or recount relevant events, including impairment of that ability resulting from mental or physical illness or substance abuse.

b) Information that tends to exculpate, reduce the degree of an offense, or support a potential defense to a charged offense.

c) Information that tends to mitigate the degree of the defendant's culpability as to a charged offense, or to mitigate punishment.

d) Information that tends to undermine evidence of the defendant's identity as a perpetrator of a charged crime, such as a non-identification of the defendant by a witness to a charged crime or an identification or other evidence implicating another person in a manner that tends to cast doubt on the defendant's guilt.

e) Information that could affect in the defendant's favor the ultimate decision on a suppression motion.

• Favorable information shall be disclosed whether or not it is recorded in tangible form, and irrespective of whether the prosecutor credits the information.

• Favorable information must be timely disclosed in accordance with the United States and New York State constitutional standards, and in accordance with the timing provisions of CPL article 245. The prosecutor is reminded that the obligation to disclose is a continuing one. Prosecutors should strive to determine if favorable information exists. The prosecutor shall disclose the information expeditiously upon its receipt and shall not delay disclosure if it is obtained earlier than the time period for disclosure in CPL 245.10(1).

• A protective order may be issued for good cause pursuant to CPL 245.70 with respect to disclosures required under this order.

• Failures to provide disclosure in accordance with CPL Article 245 are subject to the available remedies and sanctions for nondisclosures pursuant to CPL 245.80.

• Only willful and deliberate conduct will constitute a violation of this order or be eligible to result in personal sanctions against a prosecutor.

Defense counsel, having filed a notice of appearance in the above captioned case, is obligated under both the New York State and the United States Constitution to provide effective representation of defendant. Although the following list is not meant to be exhaustive, counsel shall remain cognizant of the obligation to:

a) Confer with the client about the case and keep the client informed about all significant developments in the case;

b) Timely communicate to the client any and all guilty plea offers, and provide reasonable advice about the advantages and disadvantages of such guilty plea offers and about the potential sentencing ranges that would apply in the case;

c) When applicable based upon the client's immigration status, ensure that the client receives competent advice regarding the immigration consequences in the case as required under Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010);

d) Perform a reasonable investigation of both the facts and the law pertinent to the case (including as applicable, e.g., visiting the scene, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing pertinent materials, consulting experts, inspecting exhibits, reviewing all discovery materials obtained from the prosecution, researching legal issues, etc.), or, if appropriate, make a reasonable professional judgment not to investigate a particular matter;

e) Comply with the requirements of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest, and when appropriate, timely notify the court of a possible conflict so that an inquiry may be undertaken or a ruling made;

f) Possess or acquire a reasonable knowledge and familiarity with criminal substantive, [*7]procedural and evidentiary law to ensure constitutionally effective representation in the case; and

g) When the statutory requirements necessary to trigger required notice from the defense are met (e.g., a demand, intent to introduce particular evidence, etc.), comply with the statutory notice obligations for the defense as specified in CPL 250.10, 250.20, and 250.30.

The branch of the motion requesting leave to file additional motions is granted to the extent recognized by CPL§ 255.20(3).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

The Clerk of the court is directed to distribute copies of this decision and order to the attorney for the defendant and to the District Attorney.