People v Caroline

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on March 26, 2026

Docket No. CR-027988-25BX

Yadhira González-Taylor, J.

By motion dated February 3, 2026, defendant, Michelle Caroline, moves for an order deeming the People's Certificate of Compliance ("CoC") invalid due to the prosecution's belated disclosures and failure to abide by defense counsel's discovery policy, and for an order dismissing the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 (1) (b). If his motion is not granted, defendant requests a hearing pursuant to People v Allard to resolve any disputed issues of material fact. Defendant further seeks an order suppressing noticed statements or, alternatively, a Huntley/Dunaway hearing and a Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux hearing to preclude evidence of her prior convictions or bad acts. Lastly, defendant seeks to reserve her right to file additional motions as necessary. The prosecution opposes the motion in its entirety.

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the People's CPL § 245.20 disclosures were properly served and their CoC, dated December 30, 2025, was VALID; and further;

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 (1) (b) was TIMELY; and defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

Defendant's application seeking the right to make further motions is GRANTED to the extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3); and

Suppression of evidence pursuant to CPL § 710.30 is DENIED, pre-trial hearings are ORDERED as provided herein and Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux issues are REFERRED to the trial court.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2025, defendant Michelle Caroline was arrested and charged with violating Penal Law §§ 120.00 (1) (assault in the third degree) and 260.10 (1) (endangering the welfare of a child), both misdemeanors, and 240.26 (1) (harassment in the second degree), a violation. Defendant was arraigned on October 15, 2025, and released on her own recognizance. At the court appearance held on November 24, 2025, the court was advised that the People had filed and served their supporting deposition, upon which defendant was arraigned, and the criminal complaint was deemed converted.

At the appearance dated February 2, 2026, the court was advised that the People had filed their automatic disclosures, CoC, and Statement of Readiness ("SoR") on December 30, 2025, and the instant motion schedule was set. The People opposed the motion on February 24, 2026, and defendant's reply was filed on March 2, 2026.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Arguments

Defendant

The gravamen of defendant's motion is that the assigned ADA repeatedly failed to share discovery with defense counsel's discovery team at their dedicated email address, bxddiscovery@bronxdefenders.org, and, instead, in contravention of The Bronx Defenders' mandated policy, emailed the assigned defense counsel directly (defendant's affirmation at ¶ 14). Defense counsel further complains that the People did not reshare items previously disclosed with their CoC on December 30, 2025, into the proper repository until January 14, 2026 (defendant's affirmation at ¶¶ 16-17). Defendant further asserts that the activity log for Police Officer ("PO") Lewis and an outstanding request for a photograph of the complainant's injuries were both belatedly disclosed and improperly served via defense counsel's email and a OneDrive link on January 16 and January 20, respectively, and that these belated disclosures rendered the CoC invalid (defendant's affirmation at ¶¶ 20, 22, 31).

Defense counsel maintains that in assessing the People's due diligence pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (5) (a), the Court should find that where five items were belatedly disclosed: two 911 calls, two radio runs, the ICAD, PO Lewis's activity log and the complainant's injury photograph, and two items remain outstanding: the complainant's 911 call and a clear image of the NYPD command log, the assigned ADA's repeated failure to include defense counsel's dedicated discovery liaison when sharing materials, in particular, weighs against a finding of due diligence (defendant's reply affirmation). Counsel also argues that the case is not complex nor is the documentation produced voluminous, and asserts that the People's failure to proffer an explanation for their discovery lapse; to remedy their nondisclosure of the 911 call and command log materials; and to self-report their omission of the complainant's injury photograph all demonstrate a lack of due diligence (defendant's reply affirmation).

The People

The People assert that when they shared initial disclosures with their CoC filing on December 30, 2025, they self-reported that 911 call materials were still outstanding despite their requests to NYPD's "Tapes and Records" unit on October 20 and December 30, 2025 (People's affirmation at 4). The People further contend that they proactively followed up for outstanding photographs, activity logs, and 911 calls, and that 911 recordings were disclosed with their supplemental CoC on January 14, 2026, and a picture of the complainant's injury was disclosed on January 20, 2026, the same date that the assigned ADA was advised that there were no other 911 call materials (People's affirmation at 5-7). The People maintain that on February 4, 2026, they renewed their request for a clearer image of the NYPD command log and any 911 calls by the complainant (People's affirmation at 7).

Additionally, the People contend that the command log is not automatically discoverable because it does not relate to the subject matter of the charges but nonetheless maintain that they disclosed the item with their CoC filing on December 30, 2025, and requested a clearer copy on January 20, February 2 and February 4, 2026, to no avail (People's affirmation at 10). Moreover, the prosecution argues that despite repeated unsuccessful efforts to procure responsive materials, the CoC should not be impugned because of the nondisclosure of any 911 call recordings of the complainant because they are not in the People's actual possession (People's affirmation at 9). Lastly, the prosecution opposes defendant's motion for omnibus relief in its entirety (People's affirmation at 18-20).

II. Applicable Legal Standard

The CoC Challenge

In People v Bay, the Court of Appeals found that, in evaluating prosecutorial due diligence, the "key question in determining if a proper certificate of compliance has been filed is whether the prosecution has exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to determine the existence of material and information subject to discovery," a case-specific inquiry of the record at bar (see Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211-213 [2023] [emphasis added]).

Many of the factors set forth in the Bay decision animate the amendments to New York's discovery law with one notable exception: the People are no longer required to provide automatic discovery before filing their CoC if they demonstrate that they exercised due diligence and acted in good faith to fulfill their disclosure mandate (see 245.50 [1]). Moreover, the 2025 Legislative reforms enumerate several factors a court must consider when assessing the opposing party's due diligence, including the volume of discovery provided, whether the prosecution's lapse was self-reported, if the omission was corrected and whether the assigned ADA knew that missing or belatedly disclosed information existed (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a]). However, the statute specifically provides that the court's determination shall be based on the totality of the party's efforts to comply rather than any one factor referenced therein (see CPL § 245.50 [5] [a], [b] [emphasis added]).

The CPL § 30.30 Challenge

In a motion to dismiss misdemeanor charges pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (1), the defendant has the initial burden to demonstrate that the prosecution failed to declare trial readiness within the statutorily prescribed time, 90 days (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]); People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78 [1995]). The burden then shifts to the People to identify excludable delays (see Luperon, 85 NY2d at 78).

Additionally, the prosecution must declare readiness for trial on the record (seePeople v England, 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994] ["Trial readiness in CPL § 30.30 means both a communication of readiness by the People on the record and an indication of present readiness"] citing Kendzia at 337). Lastly, the People must satisfy their statutory obligation pursuant to CPL § 245.50 (3), which provides that "the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section" (seeId.).

III. The Court's Analysis

Belated and Outstanding Disclosures

Where the Bay decision advised courts that "belated disclosure will not necessarily establish a lack of due diligence or render an initial COC improper," the reasonableness of the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations prior to their CoC filing- despite belated or missing disclosures- must be examined whether the belated/missing discovery is known or unknown to the People, and this Court submits that to do otherwise is tantamount to invoking a strict liability standard which the Legislature did not create (see Bay at 212-213).

As a threshold matter, although defense counsel avers that the prosecution's service of discovery materials must be emailed specifically to The Bronx Defenders' discovery team, this Court has previously held that "defense counsel's institutional email procedures should not be confused with any obligation set forth in the Criminal Procedure Law, which is silent on what constitutes proper service" (see People v Nichols, 79 Misc 3d 1211[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50591[U], *6 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023] citing People v Godoy, 180 Misc 2d 771, 773, 698 NYS2d 390 [Crim Ct, NY County 1999] ["courts have looked to provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rule [ ] for guidance, including CPLR 2103, which discusses service of papers"]). Accordingly, where a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, her counsel acts as the defendant's agent upon whom the People can properly rely to effect service upon the defendant (see Godoy at 773-774; CPLR § 2103 [b]). Defense counsel has not proffered any statutory authority to find that the disclosures in the People's CoC filing on December 30, 2025, were improperly served.

Next, the Court has reviewed the email exhibits appended to the prosecution's opposition, and the record demonstrates that the assigned ADA repeatedly endeavored to follow up with the NYPD for outstanding items, including activity logs for PO Lewis, complainant photographs taken by the NYPD, ICAD, and body-worn camera footage and, indeed, of the seven disputed items that precipitated this CoC challenge, five were disclosed prior to defendant's motion.

In regard to any 911 recordings by the complainant, the People's opposition provides that [*2]on January 20, 2026, the assigned spoke to the arresting officer and was informed that "there is no other 911 recording available to provide" and further that the assigned ADA "used the 911 Application to request [sic] 911 recording using the address, complaint number, incident precinct, incident type, docket number, and date. However, an error message showed that the docket number is not valid, even though that is the correct docket number of this matter" (People's affirmation at 6). Nevertheless, the assigned renewed his request on February 2 and 4, 2026. Consequently, the Court finds that the People demonstrated due diligence in their pursuit of responsive 911 call recordings. Moreover, counsel has not presented any meritorious argument for finding that the belated disclosure impeded defendant's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial.

Yet, concerning the outstanding command log, the Court finds that although the assigned ADA pursued a clearer image multiple times, the People have not explained why an improved copy has still not been disclosed.

Criminal Law Procedure § 245.50 (5) provides that "(i)n assessing a party's due diligence, the court shall look at the totality of the party's efforts to comply with the provisions of this article, rather than assess the party's efforts item by item" (see § 245.50 [5]). Accordingly, we decline to invalidate the prosecution's CoC based upon the belated disclosure of two 911 calls, two radio runs, the ICAD, PO Lewis's activity log and the complainant's injury photograph where the assigned ADA alternatively self-reported the People's omissions, took remedial efforts to comply with Article 245 requirements and marshaled outstanding documentation without court intervention, and because their lapse was not prejudicial to the defense. Although the People's explanation for their failure to disclose a clear image of the NYPD command log does not suffice, this omission does not warrant the invalidation of their CoC.

The CPL § 30.30 Calculation

Generally, a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant, and it is settled law that the date on which the action is commenced is excluded from the CPL § 30.30 computation (see CPL § 1.20 [17]; see alsoPeople v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Accordingly, the People's speedy trial time began to accrue on October 16, 2025, the day following defendant's arraignment. The People validly declared readiness for trial by filing their CoC and SoR on December 30, 2025 (October 15, 2025 — December 30, 2025 = 75 days), within their statutorily allotted time (see CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the People's CoC dated December 30, 2025, was VALID; and further;

The prosecution pursuant to CPL §§ 170.30 (1) (e) and 30.30 (1) (b) was TIMELY; and defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is DENIED; and

Defendant's application seeking the right to make further motions is GRANTED to the [*3]extent provided by CPL § 255.20 (3); and

Suppression of evidence pursuant to CPL § 710.30 is DENIED, a Huntley/Wade pre-trial hearing is GRANTED and Sandoval/Ventimiglia/Molineux issues are REFERRED to the trial court.

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

Dated: March 26, 2026

Bronx, New York

HON. YADHIRA GONZÁLEZ-TAYLOR, A.J.S.C.