People v Perez

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Decided on March 18, 2026

Docket No. CR-050275-25KN

Masateru Marubashi, J.

Defendant is charged with Driving While Intoxicated (VTL § 1192[3]) and Driving While Ability Impaired (VTL § 1192[1]). By motion filed January 22, 2026, the defendant challenges the validity of the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and moves to dismiss the information pursuant to CPL § 30.30. The People filed an opposition to the defendant's motion on February 11, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is denied.

The criminal action commenced with the filing of a misdemeanor information on October 18, 2025. On January 16, 2026, the People filed and served a COC and statement of readiness (SOR).

Validity of the People's Certificate of Compliance

The sole issue raised by the defendant is the method of service utilized by the People in serving their COC. The defendant acknowledges receipt of discovery from the People and does not allege that any automatically discoverable material is missing. Citing CPLR § 2103(b)(7),FN1 defendant asserts that electronic service absent written consent from the receiving party is ineffective. In this case, he argues that service of the COC was invalid because it was sent by electronic means without defense counsel's consent.

In response, the People argue that the validity of a COC does not rest on method of service. The People assert that the validity of a COC rests on whether the People have exercised due diligence in fulfilling their discovery obligations. As defense counsel concedes, the People provided the requisite discovery materials to the defendant by electronic means. The People [*2]argue that pursuant to CPL § 245.50(3),FN2 they are only required to, "file a valid certificate" to establish their readiness for trial. They note that this provision of the statute, in contrast to other sections of Article 245, does not require service on the defendant. Here the People argue that they have acted with the requisite amount of diligence in providing the discovery to the defendant, making their COC valid.

Pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1), "the prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test, all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case." After fulfilling their initial discovery obligations, the People must "serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance." (CPL § 245.50 [1].) A valid certificate of compliance is a necessary pre-requisite to an effective statement of readiness. (CPL § 30.30 [5].) For a COC to be valid, the People must disclose and make available "all known material and information it has obtained subject to discovery." (CPL § 245.50 [1].) The statute further requires that the People "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable." (CPL § 245.20 [2].) Thus, in any challenge to the People's certification of compliance, the court must determine whether the People exercised the requisite level of diligence in obtaining the materials, whether their COC was filed in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances. (see People v Erby, 68 Misc 3d 625 [Sup Ct Bronx County 2020], People v Knight, 69 Misc 3d 546, 552 [Sup Ct Kings County 2020], People v McKinney, 71 Misc 3d 1221A [Crim Ct Kings County 2021], People v Adrovic, 69 Misc 3d 563] Crim Ct Kings County 2020]).

In assessing due diligence, the court must conduct a case specific analysis that generally considers, "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of [the statute]; 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 lapses; 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 defendant or otherwise impeded defense counsel's ability to effectively investigate the case or prepare for trial." (CPL § 245.50 [5][a]; also see People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 212 [2023].)

To overcome a challenge to the validity of their certification the People must establish that they exercised the requisite level of diligence in gathering all discoverable materials prior to filing their COC. (Bay at 212.) The Court must consider the totality of the circumstances in determining due diligence, "rather than a strict item-by-item test that would require us to conclude that a COC is improper if the People miss even one item of discovery." (People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 [4th Dept 2024].)

Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law does not specify a method of service or how discovery must be turned over to a defendant. In fact, the CPL does not provide a definition of what constitutes proper service. While it is permissible to look to the CPLR for guidance for [*3]procedural issues that are not addressed in the CPL, the Court holds that the CPLR is not binding in criminal matters. (CPLR § 101; CPL § 1.10; see People v Silva, 122 AD2d 750 [1st Dept. 1986], in the context of the defendants' oral motion to set aside the verdict, the First Department ruled, that "the CPLR has no application to criminal actions and proceedings.")

In the high volume, fast paced environment of criminal practice in New York, electronic service is often the most efficient method of serving documents. This is emphasized by the court's utilization of the Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS) for electronically filing documents in court. The Court encourages the parties to accommodate each other in ensuring that service is done effectively. It does not find it practicable to impose a bright line rule that would invalidate a COC that is otherwise proper based solely on the method of service.

Here, defense counsel acknowledges that he received the requisite discovery materials. He does not claim that any materials were omitted or that the People failed to act with due diligence. His objection is based solely on the method in which the COC was served. The Court of Appeals has established that the validity of a COC is determined by evaluating whether the People "exercise[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery." (Bay at 211 citing CPL § 245.50 [1].) Invalidating a COC that has been filed in good faith after the exercise of due diligence solely because defense counsel prefers an alternate form of service is inconsistent with the requirements of the statute and binding authority. (See CPL § 245.50(1) ["No adverse consequence to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from the filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances."]; Bay at 212 ["There is no rule of strict liability, that is, the statute does not require or anticipate a "perfect prosecutor."].)

While some courts of concurrent jurisdiction have applied CPLR § 2103(b)(7) and deemed electronic service of a COC without defense consent to be invalid, this court respectfully declines to follow their reasoning. (see People v Benincasa, 83 Misc 3d 1264(A) [Crim Ct Kings County 2024].)

Accordingly, defendant's motion to invalidate the People's COC is denied.

Speedy Trial Calculation

CPL § 30.30(1)(b) requires the People to be ready for trial within 90 days of arraignment. After a careful review of the defendant's motion and the People's response, the motion to dismiss is denied. The court finds that the People were ready for trial within 90 days of defendant's arraignment.

October 18, 2025, to December 15, 2025

On October 18, 2025, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint. The defendant was released, and the matter was adjourned to December 15, 2025, for the People's COC.

58 chargeable days.

December 15, 2025, to January 21, 2026

On December 15, 2025, the People had not yet filed a certificate of compliance. The matter was adjourned to January 21, 2026, for that purpose. On January 16, 2026, the People filed a valid certificate of compliance.

32 chargeable days.

January 21, 2026, to March 18, 2026

On January 21, 2026, the Court set a motion schedule and adjourned the matter to March 18, 2026, for the court's decision.

[*4]0 chargeable days.

The People have accrued a total of 90 chargeable days since the defendant's arraignment and the defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Dated: March 18, 2026

Kings County, New York

Hon. Masateru Marubashi