Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

Decided on March 19, 2026

Docket No. CR-025604-25NY

Marva C. Brown, J.

[*1]

Erick Carrera, hereinafter "defendant," is charged with one count of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated (VTL 1192[3]), an unclassified misdemeanor, and various related charges. By Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated January 27, 2026, the defense challenges the validity of the People's Certificate of Compliance (COC) and seeks dismissal pursuant to CPL § 30.30. The defense also moves the Court by omnibus motion for various relief. The People oppose by motion filed February 11, 2026, and the defense replied on February 27, 2026.

I. VALIDITY OF THE PEOPLE'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Under CPL § 245.20(1), "the prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test," all items enumerated in CPL § 245.20(1) that are "in the possession, custody and control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control". "[A]ll items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution" (CPL § 245.20[2]; see also CPL § 245.55[1] [prosecution must "ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police and other investigative personnel and his or her office"]). CPL § 245.10(1)(a) requires the People to perform their initial discovery obligations on a case "as soon as practicable" but within twenty days after arraignment for incarcerated defendants, and, within thirty-five calendar days after arraignment for all others. Pursuant to CPL § 245.50(1), when the prosecution has exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide all required discovery, it shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance (COC). Any COC shall state that, "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries and efforts to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose material and information subject to discovery, the prosecution has disclosed and made available all known material and information it has obtained subject to discovery." The COC must also identify the items provided, along with items "that the prosecution is required to disclose and of which the prosecution is aware but has been unable to obtain despite the exercise of due diligence as evaluated under this section" (id.). If additional discovery is disclosed after a COC is filed, the prosecution must serve and file a supplemental certificate of compliance (SCOC) detailing "the basis for the delayed disclosure so that the court may determine whether the delayed disclosure impacts the propriety of the certificate of compliance" (CPL § 245.50[1-a]). However, the filing of an SCOC shall not impact the validity of the original COC if filed "in good faith and after exercising due diligence", or if the additional discovery did not exist at the time of the [*2]original COC's filing (id.).

To assess the People's diligence with respect to automatically discoverable items either belated disclosed or not disclosed at all, this court must look at the totality of the People's efforts to comply with Article 245, rather than assess their efforts item by item (see § CPL 245.50[5][a], see also CPL § 30.30[5][b]). "Relevant factors for assessing the prosecutor's due diligence include, but are not limited to: the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article; 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" (CPL § 245.50[5][a]; see also CPL §30.30[5][b]). "The court's determination shall be based on consideration of all factors listed in [CPL §245.50(5)(a)] and no one factor shall be determinative" (CPL § 245.50[5][b]). "A court shall not invalidate a certificate of compliance where the party has exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the material required to be disclosed" (CPL §245.50[6]).

Here, the defense argues that the People's COC and subsequent SCOCs were invalid for their failure to turn over the following: records of gas chromatography for simulator solution lots 25040 and 25110; Officer Distler's Department of Health Certification Permit and letter; the complete activity log of Officer Suri; and the video attachment for Officer Sahota's IAB Log 2025-19672. The People argue any belated disclosures do not invalidate their COC, as they exercised due diligence to fulfill their discovery obligations.

Given CPL 245.50(5)(a)'s factors, this court finds that the People met their burden to show that they exercised due diligence to comply with their discovery obligations for this case. While the fact that the People failed to abide by Article 245's timelines weighs heavily against the People, the remaining nine of CPL 245.50(5)(a)'s factors do not. The People outlined in detail the steps they took to ensure discovery compliance for this case. The defendant was arraigned on the instant case on August 17, 2025. The very next day, their office requested all body-worn camera (BWC) for this case. Three days after the defendant's arraignment, the People began reviewing the BWC, and on August 22, 2025, the People ordered the police records, including any 911 calls, radio runs, and sprint reports, from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit. On August 25, 2025, the People finished reviewing the BWC for this case, served statement notice based on the statements viewed in that BWC footage, and downloaded all NYPD paperwork for this case to determine what, if anything, remained outstanding.FN1

On September 3, 2025, the People spoke with the arresting officer on the phone and requested the outstanding discovery, including any photographs or communications taken or made on the day of the defendant's arrest. The People followed up with the arresting officer about discovery multiple times - September 4, September 9, September 15, October 11, October 27, October 28, and November 5. On September 4, 2025, the People also requested the ZOLPA from the New York County District Attorney's Office Litigation Support Unit ("LSU"). On October 1, 2025, the People sent an email to LSU requesting the remaining outstanding discovery. The People also requested that LSU inquire into the existence of certain items, such as a warrant check and vehicle seizure form, which were checked off on the arrest checklist but not included in the initial arrest packet. That same day, LSU requested and received the items from the Midtown North Precinct and confirmed the existence and non-existence of certain items.

On October 16, 2025, the People put in a request to their office's Law Enforcement Disclosure Group ("LED Group") to review the disclosures for four of the officers involved in the defendant's arrest. These officers' files were reviewed, and their disclosures were updated and completed throughout the month of October. On November 5, 2025, the People received the radio run, sprint report, and associated certifications from the NYPD Tapes and Records Unit. That same day, the People sent discovery to the defendant via eDiscovery. The discovery package included 209 individual items, including body-worn camera, police paperwork, and paperwork generated by the District Attorney's Office — the volume of which is far greater the discovery at issue here.

With respect to the missing items, defense counsel requested the missing gas chromatography records on November 10, 2025, and the People disclosed them on November 18, 2025, without court intervention. The prejudice to the defense was minimal to non-existent, especially considering the fact that the defense received these records within days of requesting them and before the next scheduled court date.

As for the DOH permit and letter for Officer Distler and Officer Suri's completed activity log, the People disclosed these items on December 10, 2025, once again without court intervention. This court does not find that the delay in Officer Distler's DOH permit prejudiced the defense or impeded their ability to prepare for trial. Contrary to defense counsel's claim, whether Officer Distler had a valid DOH permit does not "bear directly" on whether the Intoxilyzer results for this case would be admissible at trial. Although proof that a chemical test was administered by an individual possessing a permit issued by the Department of Health is "presumptive evidence that the examination was properly given" (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[4][c] ), this provision "do[es] not prohibit the introduction as evidence of an analysis made by an individual other than a person possessing a permit issued by the [Department of Health]" (id.). Therefore, the delay in this document's production did little if anything to prejudice the defense. Further, when the defense requested this permit, the People made immediate efforts to obtain it and disclosed it to the defense shortly thereafter without court intervention. With respect to the Officer Suri's activity log, the People requested and attempted to disclose the officer's proper activity log prior to filing their COC. Notably, the defense concedes that this particular delayed disclosure did not cause them prejudice or impede their ability to prepare for trial. As the People explain, Officer Suri worked two shifts on August 17, 2025, which was the day of the defendant's arrest. The People disclosed the activity log from Officer Suri's first shift on August 17, 2025, however, the log did not cover his second shift on August 17, 2025, and therefore did not cover the defendant's arrest. Even a diligent prosecutor may not have noticed this defect. Further, once defense counsel alerted the People that the log disclosed did not cover the time of the defendant's arrest, but was for the correct day, the People promptly requested the complete log and disclosed it upon receipt.

The only outstanding item is a video attachment to Officer Sahota's IAB Log 2025-19672. Notably, prior to filing their COC, in October of 2025, the People did request that their office's Law Enforcement Disclosure Group ("LED Group") obtain and review disclosures for Officer Sahota. Prior to the People's COC, they disclosed the items that they had in their actual possession to defense counsel. However, the video attachment for Officer Sahota's IAB Log 2025-19672 was not included. As explained by the People, "[h]ere, the attachment at issue is a video depicting a use of force incident inside the 18th precinct. The only substantiated allegation in the IAB Log is for the officer's failure to not mark the incident in his activity log. The IAB Log itself notes that the officer did not lie about completing the activity log, nor did he attempt to obfuscate the truth. The failure to mark the incident in the activity log was marked as a "Minor Procedural Violation." Moreover, the video is described at length in the IAB Log itself. There are paragraphs in the IAB Log discussing exactly what the video depicts" (P.'s Opp. at p. 21). When alerted to this video's omission and despite their belief that this item was not automatically discoverable, the People immediately reached out to their LED Group to inquire about the missing video. The LED Group then inquired with the District Attorney's Office counsel for pre-trial litigation and discovery, who is the top liaison between the NYPD Giglio Group and the District Attorney's Office. The assigned assistant was then informed by the top liaison with the NYPD Giglio Group that the Group is overwhelmed with regular Giglio requests, and that the Group would not obtain the attachment without a Court order. Given the nature of the video compared to the IAB's findings, the fact that the video is described in at length in the log itself, and the steps that the [*3]People took both before and after filing their initial COC, this finds that its omission does not invalidate the People's COC.

Lastly, the defense's argument that this court has previously invalidated COCs under similar circumstances is incorrect. First, three of the four of the decisions cited by the defense — Aiken, Contreras Vasquez, and Free — all concerned COCs subject to Article 245 prior to the most recent reforms, which added the CPL 245.50(5)(a) factors that courts must consider when evaluating the validity of a COC. Prior to these reforms, courts were not permitted to consider many of the factors now listed in CPL 245.50 when evaluating whether the People exercised due diligence prior to filing their initial COC (see, e.g,People vBay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [Court of Appeals rejected the People's argument that "their failure to relay the belated discovery items before filing the COC was inadvertent, that the provision of supplemental discovery does not invalidate a prior COC, and that dismissal should be a 'last resort' imposed only when no other measure can cure any prejudice caused by belated disclosure"]). Article 245 now requires that this court's determination of a COC's validity to "be based on consideration of all factors listed in [CPL §245.50(5)(a)] and no one factor shall be determinative" (CPL § 245.50[5][b]). Secondly, the one decision cited by the defense where this court invalidated the People's COC based on the new amended statute involved far more significant belated disclosures and far greater prejudice to the defense (seePeople v Hamza, Docket No. CR-021841-25NY [Crim Ct, NY County January 20, 2026] [failed to diligently disclose the one eye-witness's information collected by police, which led to its destruction, along with photos taken of the complainant's injuries, handwritten notes, and the activity log for a responding officer]). This court's decision here is consistent (if not almost identical) with this court's decision cited by the People, People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 51840(U) (Crim Ct, NY County November 19, 2025). In Smith, this court applied CPL 245.20(5)(a)'s factors and found the People's COC valid despite their belated disclosure of an officer's DOH permit, a few IAB attachments and a finalized activity log for one officer.

In sum, given CPL 245.50(5)(a)'s factors, this court finds that the People exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide automatic discovery for this case. Therefore, the People's initial COC was VALID, and defense's motion is DENIED.

II. SPEEDY TRIAL

Pursuant to CPL § 30.30[1][b], when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of more than three months, such as in this case, the prosecution must be ready within 90 days from the commencement of that criminal action. To satisfy the initial burden under CPL § 30.30, the defendant need allege "only that the prosecution failed to declare readiness within the statutorily prescribed time period" (People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78 (1995); see alsoPeople v Goode, 87 NY2d 1045, 1047 [1996]). Once the defendant has alleged that more than the statutorily prescribed time period has elapsed since the commencement of the action, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing sufficient excludable delay (seePeople v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 [1980]). Absent a valid COC, the People cannot be deemed ready for trial (CPL § 245.50[3]).

This case was filed, and the defendant was arraigned on August 17, 2025. The defendant was released, and the case was adjourned to October 10, 2025, for trial. The People concede that this time is chargeable. (54 days charged)

On October 10, 2025, the People were not ready, and the case was adjourned to November 20, 2025, for trial. As stated above, on November 10, 2025, off-calendar, the People served and filed a COC and COR that were valid and effective in stopping the speedy trial clock. The People concede that the time is chargeable to the date they filed their initial COC.FN2(31 days charged; 85 days total)

On November 20, 2025, the People were ready, and the defense requested an adjournment. The case was adjourned to January 27, 2026, for trial. This time is excluded, because the People were ready, and the defense requested the adjournment. (0 days charged)

On January 27, 2026, defense filed the instant motion, a motion schedule was set, and the case was adjourned to March 19, 2026, for a decision. This time is excluded for motion practice. (0 days charged)

As there are only 85 days of chargeable time for this case, defense's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

III. MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND PRECLUDE

The defendant's motion for the suppression of tangible, non-tangible and testimonial evidence, is granted to the extent that Mapp/Dunaway/Ingle/Johnson hearings are ordered. Gursey and VTL 1194 hearings are also ordered. The defendant's motion for suppression of statements, allegedly attributed to him, is granted to the extent that Huntley/Dunaway hearings will be conducted. A voluntariness hearing is also ordered. The defendant's motion for the preclusion of unnoticed statements and unnoticed identification testimony is granted.

IV. MOTION FOR SANDOVAL HEARING

The defendant's motion pursuant to People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974] and People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981] is referred to the trial court for determination.

V. BRADY/ROSARIO

The People are reminded of their continuing obligation pursuant to Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) and its progeny. The People are reminded of their continuing obligation to supply all Brady and Rosario material as well as their supplemental discovery obligations under CPL Article 245, to be served on defense no later than 15 days prior to the first scheduled trial date.

VI. ADDITIONAL MOTIONS

Any additional, supplemental, or amended motions contemplated by the defendant shall be permitted.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: March 19, 2026

HON. MARVA C. BROWN, JCC