People v Semidey

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on March 4, 2026

Docket No. CR-018707-25BX

Ralph L. Wolf, J.

Summary

Defense motion seeking dismissal of the information on statutory speedy trial grounds is DENIED.

Procedural History

Lisa Semidey was arrested on July 11, 2025 and charged with assault and harassment in violation of Penal Law §§ 120.00(1) and 240.26(1) respectively. She was arraigned in Bronx Criminal Court on July 13, 2025 and released on her own recognizance. The case was adjourned to September 17, 2025 for conversion and for the prosecution to file their Certificate of Compliance (COC). On September 17, 2025 Ms. Semidey was not present, the prosecution submitted a supporting deposition and the complaint was deemed an information. The case was adjourned to September 26, 2025 for Ms. Semidey to appear. On September 26, 2025 Ms. Semidey appeared and was arraigned on the information. The case was adjourned to October 21, 2025 for the prosecution to file their COC. On October 20, 2025 the prosecution filed the Automatic Disclosure Form, COC and Statement of Readiness (SOR). On October 21, 2025 Ms. Semidey's current attorney appeared for the first time, the court acknowledged receipt of the prosecution's filings and the case was adjourned to November 18, 2025 for the new defense attorney to obtain and review discovery. On November 18, 2025 the instant motion schedule was set.

This case comes before this court on a defense motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30. The defense argues that the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence prior to filing their COC when the prosecution failed to disclose photos that are subject to disclosure. The [*2]defense also asks this court to strike the COC and a later filed SCOC signed by a law graduate.FN1 The prosecution argues that they exercised due diligence. According to the prosecutor, they believed they had provided the two photos as part of the other materials they previously disclosed to the defense and the failure to disclose was inadvertent.

Relevant Facts

On July 16, 2025 the prosecution submitted a request for 911 call materials. On July 17, 2025 the prosecution submitted a request to the 40th Precinct for all discovery generated for the instant matter. At some point the prosecution shared Body Worn Camera (BWC) video with the defense. On October 4, 2025 the prosecution sent another email to the precinct requesting discovery. The prosecution received all outstanding discovery on October 16, 2025, and shared most of the discovery it obtained on October 20, 2025 by uploading the discovery to OneDrive and emailing a link to the assigned attorney and the Bronx Defenders discovery portal. On November 3, 2025 the defense emailed the prosecution that they had not received two photos of injuries allegedly sustained by the complaining witness that had been referenced in other discovery. On November 10, 2025, after no initial response, the defense followed up. The prosecution responded that same day, and by November 12, 2025 the prosecution disclosed the two photos of injuries, which appear to be the only remaining discovery requested by the defense. The prosecution explained that the photos did not upload to OneDrive originally. The belatedly disclosed photos were not listed in the COC.

Legal Analysis

Since the top charge in this case is an A misdemeanor, CPL § 30.30(1)(b) requires the People to be ready within 90 days of arraignment (by October 11, 2025 in this case). SeePeople v Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 403 (2016). Under CPL § 245.10(1)(a)(ii), "[w]hen the defendant is not in custody during the pendency of the criminal case, the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations within thirty-five calendar days after the defendant's arraignment." Therefore, initial discovery obligations in this case were due by August 17, 2025.

A valid COC requires the prosecution to make a diligent, good faith effort to determine what discoverable material exists and to disclose those materials to the defense. CPL § 245.20(2).

Read together, CPL 245.50 and CPL 30.30 require that due diligence must be conducted prior to filing a COC (see CPL 245.50[1] [detailing representations that must be included in a COC]; CPL 245.50[3] [directing that "the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of (CPL 30.30) ... until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to (CPL 245.50[1]).

People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 (2023). Due diligence is "[t]he diligence reasonably expected [*3]from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation." Id. at 211, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 573 (11th ed 2019). Recent amendments to CPL § 245 introduce a list of factors courts must consider when determining whether due diligence has been exercised. See CPL § 245.50(5)(a). Courts are instructed to evaluate the factors holistically. "The court's determination shall be based on consideration of all factors listed in paragraph (a) of this subdivision and no one factor shall be determinative." CPL § 245.50(5)(b).

Based on the analysis of these factors below, this court finds that the prosecution satisfied their due diligence obligation. The court will address the factors as they apply in this case.

• Prosecutorial Compliance Efforts. The prosecution provided all of the relevant discovery on the last day of the statutory period on October 20, 2025 FN2 except two photos.

• Volume of Discovery Provided/Outstanding. By November 12, 2025, the prosecution had disclosed all of the materials related to this case.

• Complexity of the Case. As noted above, the instant case is an assault case, which is one of the more common cases in Bronx County. Neither side has demonstrated any complexity related to this case.

• Prosecutorial Knowledge of Missing Material. The prosecution indicates that they believed that the missing photos were part of the materials they disclosed, and their failure to disclose the photos was inadvertent.

• Explanation of Discovery Lapse and Response to Discovery Lapse. The prosecution argues that the belatedly disclosed photos were not included in the materials disclosed prior to the initial COC because of a technical error. According to the prosecution, the photos were on the phone of the assigned prosecutor and did not upload to OneDrive for sharing. However, as the defense points out, the photos were not listed in the COC. The defense argument is that if the failure to share the photos was an inadvertent error, the photos would have been listed in the COC. Here the photos were not listed in the initial COC and not disclosed until the defense brought the missing photos to the attention of the prosecution.

• Belated Discovery was Duplicative, Insignificant or Easily Remedied. The defense argues that the photos are "a core piece of evidence[]" (Defense Motion at 8). However, the omission was remedied soon after the defense raised the issue.

• Omission Corrected. The omission was corrected within two weeks of the statutory period.

• Error Self-Reported and Promptly Remedied. The error was not self-reported. However, it took nine days and two emails to remedy the missing photos. No court intervention was required.

• Prejudice to Defense. The prosecution argues, and the defense concedes, there is no prejudice to the defense.

After considering all of the CPL § 245.50(5)(a) factors, this court finds that the prosecution complied with their discovery obligations. Additionally, the defense argument that [*4]the COC and SCOC filed in this case should be stricken is without merit.

Conclusion

Because it appears that the prosecution has disclosed all of the relevant discovery in this case, the COC and SOR are valid, the prosecution was ready for trial within 90 days under CPL § 30.30, and the defense motion is denied.

The forgoing constitutes the order and decision of the court.

Dated: March 4, 2026

Bronx, NY

Ralph L. Wolf, J.C.C.