People v Puliquizhpi

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on March 30, 2026

Docket No. CR-016901-25BX

David L. Goodwin, J.

About a month after defendant C. PuliquizhpiFN1 submitted to a chemical breath test, the Intoxilyzer 9000 machine he had used was taken out of service due to diagnostic failure. Puliquizhpi now moves to dismiss on statutory speedy trial grounds, see C.P.L. § 30.30, premising his challenge on the People's alleged failure to disclose reports and other materials connected to the machine's being taken out of service. In a supplement to his motion, he focuses specifically on the manual for the Intoxilyzer 9000 machine, which (he asserts) the People were required to provide, but instead held back in bad faith.

As explained below, because the People exercised reasonable diligence and good faith overall in connection with their discovery obligations, Puliquizhpi's motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied. However, the People are ordered to continue their efforts to locate and obtain any material regarding the machine's failure that could be relevant to a defense to these charges.

I. Background

The facts are straightforward. During a June 19 chemical breath test, Puliquizhpi allegedly blew a .139. He was charged with driving while intoxicated and while ability impaired. See V.T.L. § 1192(3), (2), (1).

The People declared ready on September 3, either 75 or 76 days into the case and well before the 90-day deadline. According to their COC, the People's disclosures included 911 calls, Giglio impeachment material for at least three officers, body-camera footage for ten officers, and documentation of the chemical breath test. See Defense's Mot., Ex. A.FN2

Upon review of the discovery, defense counsel learned from a short Field Unit Inspection report that the Intoxilyzer 9000 used to conduct Puliquizhpi's chemical breath test had been taken out of service on July 17, 2025—or about one month after the incident in this case—due to a partial diagnostic failure. See Defense's Mot. at 5 & Ex. C. Specifically, the short July 17 report overseen by the technical supervisor reflected that the machine "failed" an "analytical status" diagnostic test, and also indicated an "IRPCM status error":

Id., Ex. C.

Defense counsel suspected that there might be additional documentation on the Intoxilyzer's failure that had not been disclosed. The resulting discussion is memorialized in a series of October 2025 emails in Defense's Exhibit D, with additional back-and-forth set out in the People's response affirmation in paragraphs 24 through 61.

Briefly: pointing to standard operating procedures about what usually happens when a machine is taken out of service, defense counsel sought records related to the diagnostic failure; a handbook or manual on the machine, an older version of which had previously been FOILed by defense counsel's office; and any communications with the NYPD regarding that particular Intoxilyzer 9000. For instance, defense counsel believed that there should be more Field Unit Inspection reports because those inspections used to be regularly conducted. See Defense's Mot., Ex. D at 6 ("According to our discovery team we used to receive FUI reports that had been conducted every few weeks on the machines. Maybe that was an old protocol and NYPD no longer conducts regular FUIs?"). Counsel also emphasized that the sought-after materials were relevant to defining "failed" in the context of diagnostic failure, and that the defense's skepticism about the paucity of documentation was based on the voluminous "reports, memos and communications" on similar topics like simulator solutions. Id., Ex. D at 1-2.

After reaching out to the NYPD, and specifically to the detective who had prepared the Field Unit Inspection report on the diagnostic failure, the People maintained that there these materials did not exist, and the practices to which the defense referred—for instance, about the regularity of the Field Unit Inspection reports—were in part based on outdated information. The People also responded that the handbook/manual would not be discoverable even if it did exist, as it was not used by the NYPD and the version obtained by the defense was outdated.

However, the conferral was not entirely without success. Eleven days after the conferral began, and before the extended conferral window closed, the People were able to obtain from an Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit supervisor a photograph of the Intoxilyzer on the day it failed and a printout of the test results of a blow that occurred on that day the machine failed, which they then disclosed to the defense. People's Resp. Aff. [*3]¶¶ 50-51.

II. The Motion and Supplement

Initial Motion, Response, and Reply

Puliquizhpi filed this motion to dismiss on October 15 after receiving an extension of the good-cause deadline, citing the following outstanding and belatedly disclosed material—all of which related to the diagnostic failure—as grounds to invalidate the People's COC and dismiss the accusatory instrument under C.P.L. § 30.30FN3:

Non-disclosed: communications with the NYPD regarding the Intoxilyzer 9000 and records related to its diagnostic failure.

Belatedly disclosed: photograph of the Intoxilyzer and [Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit] printout from the machine's diagnostic failure[.]

See Defense's Mot. at 7-9. He emphasizes the sheer unlikelihood that a report of only a few pages would be the only documentation when one of the two Intoxilyzer machines used across the Bronx is taken out of commission, given the hundreds of pages associated with every simulator solution used to calibrate the machines. Puliquizhpi also alleges that the People's outreach efforts were and are incomplete, as the People did not contact the officer who conducted the test that led to the machine being taken out of service to confirm defense inquiries about paperwork generated, instead making queries of another officer. See Defense's Mot. at 16-17.

The People's response affirmation reflects continued conferral and outreach by the People to the NYPD while the motion was pending, ultimately yielding no new discoverable information. The People otherwise detail their pre-and-post-readiness outreach efforts—and, specifically, their recent outreach efforts to the technical supervisor, although the People do not appear to have heard from that supervisor directly. See People's Resp. Aff. ¶¶ 11-23, 31-37, 50. According to the People, that outreach confirmed that the material sought by the defense did not appear to exist. See People's Resp. Aff. ¶¶ 52-61.

In their memorandum of law, the People argue that the COC challenge should be denied on the merits. They defend their diligence by pointing to the copious amount of [*4]discovery provided, which was the result of extensive outreach; their post-readiness attempts to resolve the issues flagged by the defense; and the relative lack of prejudice from the belated or nondisclosure of any of the relevant information, as the machine's July failure was only tenuously related to the June chemical test at issue in this case. People's Resp. Mem. at 11-32.

In reply, among other things, Puliquizhpi details defense counsel's (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to obtain the Intoxilyzer handbook via an out-of-state subpoena. See Defense's Reply at 2. Puliquizhpi also clarifies the four issues on which he seeks a ruling:

a. Whether the third-party vendor[']s name and information is discoverable. b. Whether any communications between NYPD, or other law enforcement personal, and CMI, Inc., and/or another third-party vendor pertaining specifically to the Intoxilyzer 9000, serial # 90-002040, are discoverable. c. Whether the handbook (or operator's manual) is discoverable, regardless of whether NYPD 'uses' it, so long as it is in their possession. d. Whether a checklist, notes or other materials [the officer who took the machine out of service] utilized or referred to when conducting the diagnostic test is discoverable.

Defense's Reply at 15. Puliquizhpi does not otherwise directly address the People's record of outreach, or otherwise argue that the People's efforts outside of the narrow issue of the Intoxilyzer's failure represented a lack of due diligence.

The Supplemental Papers

Shortly before a decision was due on the motion, Puliquizhpi sought permission to file a supplemental motion based on a material change in circumstances: an attorney in the Legal Aid Society's Queens office informed defense counsel that the attorney had received an Intoxilyzer 9000 manual/handbook as part of discovery in a different case involving a machine taken out of service due to a testing failure. Puliquizhpi sought time for defense counsel to investigate the matter and to file a supplemental motion. The request was granted.

In the supplement to his motion, Puliquizhpi now asserts that defense counsel obtained a copy of an Intoxilyzer 9000 manual from the Queens colleague, as disclosed to that office by the Queens Distirct Attorney's Office. Text in the manual implies that the manual was created for the NYPD's use. But the People here adamantly insisted that they did not have any such manual. Accordingly, Puliquizhpi argues, the People did not act in good faith because the People allowed their Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit contact "to provide vague responses and responses not applicable to the question at hand." Defense's Supp. Mot. at 1-4.

In their supplemental response, the People again set out a sworn record of their outreach both before and after declaring ready. See generally People's Supp. Resp. Aff. The People otherwise again defend their diligence; argue that the NYPD training manual is not automatically discoverable and, even if it were, that the defense actually has it; and contend that any handbook created by the Intoxilyzer manufacturer is something the defense could obtain via subpoena. See generally People's Supp. Resp. Mem.

In his supplemental reply, Puliquizhpi argues, among other things, that the People's continued reference to a "training manual" elides the fact that what the defense wants is a user manual. What the defense ultimately seeks, Puliquizhpi asserts, is a "handbook that could explain what a diagnostic failure could mean," without which a defense expert could not opine on the meaning of the diagnostic failure. Defense's Supp. Reply at 3-5.

III. Legal Standard

In a case like this one, where the top count is a misdemeanor punishable by a custodial sentence of more than three months, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). If they are not ready within that 90-day window, the accusatory instrument must be dismissed on motion by the defense. C.P.L. §§ 30.30(1)(b), 170.30(e); People v. Labate, 42 NY3d 184, 190 (2024).

Under the current discovery laws, the People must comply with their discovery obligations before declaring ready for trial. See C.P.L. § 30.30(5)(a). The People do so by, among other things, filing a COC.

A COC is valid if the People have exercised due diligence and good faith in fulfilling their discovery obligations. C.P.L. §§ 30.30(5)(a)-(b), 245.50(6). This requires the People to make "reasonable" efforts and inquiries to comply with their statutory responsibilities. People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023). Factors relevant to diligence include:

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.

C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a). These factors must be assessed holistically, rather than line-by-line, with no one factor or shortcoming being determinative. Id. § 245.50(5)(b); People v. Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 (4th Dept. 2024). The People bear the burden of establishing their own diligence. Bay, 41 NY3d at 213.

IV. Discussion

The People have met their burden of showing that they discharged their discovery obligations with the requisite good faith and due diligence. The record establishes outreach and efforts that were reasonable and tailored to produce discoverable material. Accordingly, the COC is valid and the motion to dismiss will be denied.

Many of the § 245.50(5)(a) factors favor the People and weigh heavily against [*5]invalidating the COC. For instance, the People provided extensive discovery pertaining to the pending charges and engaged in reasonable efforts to ascertain and make available that discovery. Their responses to defense inquiries were timely and thorough, and the Intoxilyzer materials that were belatedly disclosed were provided within the extended conferral window. Conferral yielding acquisition of missing materials satisfies "a number of the due diligence factors." People v. Whitney, — Misc 3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op. 25248, at *6 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (David, J.). Indeed, Puliquizhpi does not dispute the People's overall diligence and good faith regarding what was, in fact, provided to the defense.

Instead, Puliquizhpi's dismissal argument is premised on documents and records connected to the failure of the Intoxilyzer machine. Puliquizhpi would like to, in effect, impeach the accuracy of his own test with the subsequent failure, presumably through expert testimony or cross-examination of the People's witnesses. See People v. Boscic, 15 NY3d 494, 497-98 (2010) (discussing attacks on the reliability of chemical test results). His ability to do so, however, is stymied in part by the failure of the People to provide information that could explain what the failure actually means, and thus indicate whether he has a reasonable basis to challenge his own test.

The People respond by contending that most of the material Puliquizhpi seeks does not actually exist, which they learned from outreach to their contacts in the NYPD. See People's Resp. Aff. ¶¶ 30-37. While Puliquizhpi argues that it should, there is nothing right now to indicate that he is right and the People are wrong. Machines used to conduct chemical tests are ordinarily the subject of extensive documentation that is intended to ensure "the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered to defendant," as must be shown "when a breathalyzer test is sought to be used against a defendant at trial." People v. Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375, 380 (1987). If the machine is not in proper working order, however, the need for documentation is less apparent.

That leaves the training/user manual, the focus of much of the current dispute. While there are many threshold questions about the alleged manual's discoverability—for instance, if it is discoverable, just how much of it is discoverable—they need not be answered to resolve this dispute. Even if the manual were discoverable and had not been disclosed to the defense in a timely fashion,FN4 and assuming without deciding that it would [*6]establish some kind of defense to the charges or that its absence would otherwise prejudice the defense, the nondisclosure of the manual would not, on this record, compel invalidation of the COC. Puliquizhpi's attacks on the People's good faith notwithstanding—at least as of right now, there is more smoke than fire—the usefulness of the manual is sufficiently speculative, and the failure to provide it comparatively minor in scope, that it would not result in invalidation of the COC and dismissal of the case.

The People are nevertheless directed to continue their search for material responsive to the defense's request and, to forestall this particular dispute, to digitize and make available for disclosure any manual they may know of pertaining to the operation or use of the Intoxilyzer 9000 that may be in the People's actual or constructive possession.

* * *

For the reasons explained above, the People's COC is deemed valid. And as Puliquizhpi does not argue that more than 90 days of chargeable time have elapsed if the People's COC were deemed valid, his request to dismiss on § 30.30 grounds is denied. The People are nevertheless ordered to continue to ascertain the existence of any discoverable communications pertaining to the failure of the Intoxilyzer 9000 and to make available to the defense any operator's manual or user manual that is in the People's actual or constructive possession.

Dated: March 30, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court