People v Ortiz

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

Decided on March 30, 2026

CR-034870-25NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

By omnibus motion, the defendant moves for an order suppressing the fruits of her seizure and arrest (Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 [1961], Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1978]); suppressing the results of a chemical test of the defendant's breath (VTL 1194 [2] [a]); suppressing a noticed statement (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]); granting a voluntariness hearing (CPL 710.20 [3]); precluding unnoticed statements (CPL 710.30 [3]); directing the People to comply with a request for a bill of particulars (CPL 200.95); directing supplemental discovery procedures (CPL 245.35); and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial.

The motion to suppress is granted to the extent that a combined Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway/Wade and VTL § 1194 hearing is ordered. The parties' allegations create an issue of fact that must be resolved at a hearing (CPL 710.60 [4]). A voluntariness hearing is ordered with the People's consent regarding any unnoticed statements to law enforcement the People intend to use on cross-examination. A voluntariness hearing is denied as to statements made to non-police witnesses because the defense has not specifically challenged any such statements. Similarly, the motion to preclude is denied because there is no indication the People intend to introduce unnoticed statements.

The motion for a bill of particulars is denied. The People filed a bill of particulars as part of their automatic disclosure form. That document and the accusatory instrument contain all the information the defense has demanded that is authorized in a bill of particulars (CPL 200.95 [5]).

The motion for a supplemental discovery order is denied. The People filed a COC in this case which the defense has not challenged. Of course, the People have a continuing duty to disclose and are required to investigate and turn over all materials favorable to the defense, especially where the defense has made a specific request (CPL 245.60, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990]). The defendant, however, has not demonstrated that court intervention is necessary to ensure the People's compliance with those obligations (see CPL 245.35).

Finally, the motion to preclude evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are directed to provide supplemental discovery to the defense as soon as practicable [*2]and at least fifteen days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [b]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: March 30, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.