People v Garcia

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on April 20, 2026

Docket No. CR-030725-25BX

David L. Goodwin, J.

Pending is the defense's counseled omnibus motion. It is resolved as follows. As the parties are the primary audience, familiarity with the case is assumed.

The branch seeking to invalidate the COC and dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied, as the People have met their burden of demonstrating due diligence and good faith in connection with their statutory discovery obligations. See C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a); People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211—12 (2023).

The People provided a timely and reasonable discovery package in this straightforward drug prosecution. The defense's discovery objections were comparatively narrow, and while the People's responses should have been swifter—a month and change is right on the border of reasonableness, especially for something as simple as the color version of a black-and-white photograph of the alleged drugs—the People were able to meaningfully respond to the defense's objections.

Moreover, several of the more troubling omissions identified by the defense appear not to be true omissions after all, in a stroke of luck for the People. The People represent that there was no 911 call, for instance, and that the CCRB report for one of the officers does not exist because the complainant in that matter chose not to proceed. And the I-Cards themselves, which are central to a determination of probable cause, were apparently disclosed as part of the original discovery proffer.

The DD5s in question, meanwhile, appear to be for the underlying investigations that led to the I-Cards—not, in other words, the DD5s in this case. While the defense relies on several decisions about how DD5s are clearly discoverable, see Defense's Reply at 6, those decisions generally refer to DD5s generated in the current case, not DD5s from prior investigations that led to probable cause I-Cards. See, e.g., People v. Clarke, 86 Misc 3d 1247(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 51227(U), at *1—2 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (discussing DD5s of officers involved in investigating the case at bar); People v. Amir, 76 Misc 3d 1209(A), 2022 NY Slip Op [*2]50856(U), at *4 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2022) (Licitra, J.) ("[T]he Court rejects the People's argument that they can fail to disclose DD5s from this case under their unilateral determination that they are somehow not related to the case. . . . Unsurprisingly, the DD5s in this case that the People failed to disclose before filing their COC, in fact, explicitly relate to the case.").

The defense may nevertheless have a plausible argument that DD5s from prior investigations could be related to the subject matter of the current case when, as here, the legality of the arrest might turn on whether the I-Cards were supported by probable cause. See People v. Palacios, — NY3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op 02360, at *2 & n.1 (Apr. 16, 2026). This appears sufficiently attenuated, though, to counsel against invalidating the COC on that ground.

Finally, the defense is correct that the People have made only a minimal record of either their pre- or post-readiness outreach. See People's Resp. Aff. at 4—5 (reflecting initial request for discovery items in the complaint room and a December 29 request for Giglio materials). This exposes the People to outsized risk, because without a record of outreach, the COC may "be vulnerable to challenge no matter their actual efforts, so long as the defense has identified a substantial discovery lapse." People v. Smith, 88 Misc 3d 1229(A), 2026 NY Slip Op. 50277(U), at *1 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2026).

However, the lapse in this case is distinguishable from the one that led to invalidation of the COC in People v. Smith. There, the main discovery issue was failure to provide body-worn camera footage from the search of the defendant's car, which had yielded contraband. The omission was particularly troubling because the officer who conducted the search was otherwise identified throughout the record. The People also had provided no record whatsoever about discovery outreach and, rather significantly, had not obtained the footage by the time the motion was decided, which was many months after the defect had been identified. See id. at *4. Here, the People's record is minimal, but not nonexistent, and the lapses are not as prominent. Moreover, with the exception of the DD5s—a far-less-clear issue than body-worn camera footage in Smith—the People have remediated or explained all of the identified lapses.

Accordingly, upon review of the relevant C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a) factors—all of which have been considered, even if not discussed above—the branch of the motion to invalidate the People's COC and dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied, as there is no argument that over 90 days have elapsed absent the invalidity of the COC.^FN2 The People are nevertheless ordered, as an exercise of court discretion, see C.P.L. § 245.35(4), to obtain and disclose DD5s connected to the underlying probable cause I-Cards that were allegedly relied on to justify the defendant's seizure and arrest. That the underlying criminal court proceedings were sealed would not appear to affect material held by the NYPD. If the reality is otherwise, the People should so advise the Court.

Regarding the requests for omnibus relief, a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is granted. Any [*3]Sandoval/Molineux/Ventimiglia/preclusion issues are reserved for the trial court. All other requests for relief not mentioned are denied.

Dated: April 20, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court