Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on March 18, 2026

Docket No. CR-021009-25BX

Deidra R. Moore, J.

[*1]

On July 28, 2025, Fuad Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), was arrested and charged with Penal Law ("P.L.") § 120.00[1], assault in the third degree, and related charges. Defendant was arraigned in Bronx County Criminal Court the following day.

The Defendant moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") §§ 30.30[1][b] and 170.30[1][e]. The Defendant contends that the statutory speedy trial period has expired because the People did not comply with their discovery obligations pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.20[1] and 245.50[3].

In the alternative, the Defendant moves for pre-trial hearings regarding suppression of properly noticed statements (People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]) and identification procedures (People v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]). The Defendant also moves to preclude evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974].

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the certificate of compliance, filed October 28, 2025, is invalid and failed to toll the speedy trial clock. As more than ninety days are chargeable to the People, Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50[4][c], 30.30[1][b], and 170.30[1][e] is GRANTED.

The remaining branches of the Defendant's motion are dismissed as moot.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2025, NYPD officers responded to 911 calls reporting an altercation between the Defendant and the complainant, "S.I.." The complainant alleged that, during a verbal dispute, the Defendant squeezed his neck, then placed him in a chokehold and punched him multiple times. The Defendant was charged under docket number CR-021[]-25BX with P.L. § 120.00[1], assault in the third degree; P.L. § 121.11[a], criminal obstruction of breathing; and P.L. § 240.26[1], harassment in the second degree. The Defendant was arraigned on July 29, 2025, and the case was adjourned to September 18, 2025, for conversion and discovery compliance.

On July 29, 2025, another 911 call was placed regarding the previous day's altercation. Responding officers spoke with N.C., the mother of complainant S.I., who had been present during the alleged assault. N.C. reported that she had attempted to intervene on her son's behalf during the assault, and that the Defendant had pulled her pinky finger and pushed her to the ground. As a result of the Defendant's actions, N.C. stated that her pinky finger and tibia were fractured. Following N.C.'s report to responding officers, an investigation card was issued for the Defendant's arrest for the alleged assault on N.C.

On September 15, 2025, the Defendant was arrested and charged under docket number CR-024[]-25BX for assaulting N.C. during the altercation with her son. For the alleged assault on N.C., the Defendant was charged with P.L. § 120.00[1], assault in the third degree, and P.L. § 240.26[1], harassment in the second degree. The Defendant was arraigned on docket CR-024[]-25BX on September 16, 2025, and the case was adjourned to September 18, 2025, for conversion and discovery compliance.

On September 18, 2025, neither docket was converted; nor had discovery been furnished on either docket. Both dockets were adjourned to October 29, 2025.

On October 8, 2025, the People filed and served a motion to consolidate the two dockets, as all charges stemmed from the same alleged criminal transaction (C.P.L. §§ 200.20[4][a] and 100.45[1]). The next day, defense counsel consented to consolidation of the dockets.

On October 27, 2025, the People filed and served a supporting deposition signed by complainant S.I. in docket number CR-021[]-25BX and a superseding information for docket number CR-024[]-25BX. The next day, the People filed and served a certificate of compliance and statement of readiness.

The parties appeared in Bronx County Criminal Court on October 29, 2025. The dockets were consolidated under docket number CR-021[]-25BX, and the Defendant was arraigned on the information. The case was adjourned for discovery conference to December 1, 2025.

On November 14, 2025, defense counsel alerted the assigned prosecutor that a number of discoverable items had not been included in the shared discovery. Following a second e-mail, the assigned prosecutor responded on November 21, 2025, stating that she would look into the requested material.

The parties appeared in Bronx County Criminal Court on December 1, 2025, at which [*2]time defense counsel filed the instant motion to invalidate the certificate of compliance and dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50[4][c], 30.30[1][b], and 170.30[1][e]. The People filed their opposition on January 29, 2026; the defense reply followed on February 17, 2026.

While the instant motion was pending, the People served additional discovery on the defense. On January 26, 2026, the assigned prosecutor shared two body-worn camera ("BWC") files which had been recorded on July 29, 2025. On January 28, 2026, the assigned prosecutor disclosed a DD5 companion case documenting the Warrant Squad's attempts to arrest the Defendant.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

The prosecution must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action where, as here, the top count charged is a class A misdemeanor (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]; P.L. § 120.00[1]).

The speedy trial clock is statutorily bound to the prosecution's discovery obligations under C.P.L. Article 245 (C.P.L. §§ 245.50[3] and 30.30[5]). Before the People may be deemed ready for trial, thus tolling the speedy trial clock, they must serve on the defense a vast array of case-related material in their possession from over twenty enumerated categories (C.P.L. § 245.20[1]). Discoverable material possessed by law enforcement agencies is deemed to be in the People's possession and must be furnished to the defense (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]). When the People have fulfilled their discovery obligations, they must file with the court and serve on the defense a certificate of compliance; this certificate must affirm that the prosecution exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and disclose discoverable material (C.P.L. § 245.50[1]). Additionally, the COC must identify any discoverable material of which the prosecution is aware but has been unable to procure despite the exercise of due diligence (id.).

Effective August 7, 2025, a challenge to the validity of a certificate of compliance must be raised by motion within thirty-five days of the COC's filing, unless a good cause extension is requested and granted within this time (C.P.L. § 245.[4][c]). Such a motion must include an affirmation from the movant declaring that the movant timely conferred in good faith with the opposing party regarding the particular issues forming the basis for the motion, and that no resolution could be reached (id.).

A COC's validity depends on whether the People exercised due diligence to comply with their discovery obligations prior to the COC's filing, and it is the People's burden to demonstrate that they acted with such diligence (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]). Courts assessing due diligence must consider a range of factors, including "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of Article 245; 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; [*3]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]). An analysis of the People's diligence must consider all factors listed under C.P.L. § 245.50[5][a], with no one factor being determinative (C.P.L. § 245.50[5][b]).

DISCUSSION

I. The Disputed Items

a. Items Disclosed to the Defendant after the COC's Filing

According to the Defendant, the People failed to disclose several substantive items prior to the COC's filing; only a few of these items have since been shared.

First, body-worn camera footage from two officers, recorded on July 29, 2025, was not shared with the defense until January 26, 2025. Defense counsel became aware of the missing files during her discovery review; a notation from the assigned detective in a disclosed DD5 stated that, during the course of his investigation, the detective reviewed BWC footage from Officers Arroyo and Valerio. Second, defense counsel states that a "DD5 companion case," which had been referenced in disclosed DD5s, was not shared until January 28, 2026. Finally, the defense objects that the complainants' medical records were not promptly obtained and furnished, despite the People's knowledge, since the commencement of the case, that at least one of the complainants had received medical treatment at a local hospital.

The People contend that the omission of the DD5 companion case, as well as the two BWC files, was an oversight; the assigned prosecutor missed the references in disclosed DD5s to both items and was unaware of their existence until she was notified by defense counsel. On November 30, 2025, the assigned prosecutor requested both items from the precinct discovery liaison and the arresting officer. Upon receiving no response, the prosecution followed up by calling the assigned detective on January 16, 2026. The body-worn camera files were obtained from the assigned detective on January 19, 2026, and shared with defense counsel on January 26, 2025; the missing companion case was received by the assigned prosecutor on January 16, 2026, and submitted to the defense on January 28, 2026.

The People acknowledge that medical records were not disclosed prior to the COC's filing, as these records were not yet in their actual possession. The assigned prosecutor obtained signed HIPAA forms from the complainants on September 23, 2025, and served subpoenas for the complainants' medical records on October 27, 2025 (Defense Motion, Exhibit R). The assigned prosecutor received medical records for the complainants on December 4, 2025. After redacting the complainants' personal information, the records were disclosed to the Defendant on December 16, 2025.

b. Items Flagged as "Currently Unavailable" in the COC

The COC lists multiple items as "currently unavailable" despite the People's "duly diligent efforts" (Defense Motion, Exhibit B at 2-3); these items include the complainants' medical records, activity log reports for Officers Acosta Rivera and Cruz Calderon, chain of custody reports, roll call logs, and a finalized complaint report. While the complainants' medical records have since been obtained and shared, the other items flagged in the COC have not.

The People assert that they made diligent efforts to obtain the still undisclosed items, including sending e-mail requests to the precinct discovery liaison on three occasions between October 14, 2025, and October 27, 2025, and contacting the arresting officer on October 27, 2025.

Of these flagged, outstanding items, the Defendant notes in particular the potential importance of Officer Acosta Rivera's activity log report, as the People intend to call this officer to testify at hearing and trial (Defense Motion at 16).

c. Items Whose Existence Remains Uncertain

The Defendant contends that body-worn camera footage may exist from his arrest on September 15, 2025, but that due to the prosecution's lack of diligence, the existence of this footage is uncertain. The prosecution asserts that BWC footage from this date "does not exist, as stated in an email to defense counsel in response to her request for it" (People's Opposition at 18).

While the prosecution states plainly that this footage does not exist, the Court is not wholly convinced. In an e-mail to defense counsel dated November 21, 2025, the assigned prosecutor states, "It seems that this arrest was made at the precinct, so there is likely no body worn camera. I will follow up with the precinct to make sure" (Defense Motion, Exhibit E).^FN1 The parties' subsequent e-mail communications, annexed to the Defendant's motion, contain no further reference to possible footage from September 15, 2025. Moreover, the People's moving papers do not articulate the factual basis from which the assigned prosecutor concluded the footage does not exist, and recounts no efforts undertaken by the People to ascertain the existence of the footage.

The Defendant also believes that the recording for one 911 call remains undisclosed. The defense received a 911 Heading sheet, which lists seven 911 calls received on June 28, 2025, reporting the incident for which the Defendant is charged. While the defense received recordings of seven 911 calls, one of these calls is unrelated to the instant case. The defense also notes that one caller reported an assault by the complainant against the Defendant; this caller stated that she had called 911 three times, but the defense received recordings for only two of this witness's calls.

The prosecution counters that the 911 call likely does not exist, but is, in any case, unavailable to them. Following defense counsel's request for the missing call, the assigned prosecutor put in a second request for emergency recordings associated with the case. Requests for such recordings are submitted to the NYPD's records department using an ICAD number; NYPD staff then "comb[s] through" a database containing emergency dispatch recordings to find all recordings associated with a particular arrest (People's Opposition at 20). The People argue that, as the second request for 911 recordings returned the same results as the first, if an additional call exists, it is not properly tagged and therefore cannot be located in the database. Additionally, the People contend that the defense received three recordings associated with the number of the witness calling to report an assault by the complainant on the Defendant.

d. Additional Items Requested by the Defendant

Finally, the defense requests underlying documentation, in the form of IAB log attachments, for all substantiated and unsubstantiated IAB complaints against testifying officers. The defense argues that the IAB log attachments comprise potential impeachment material pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k], while the People contend these attachments are outside the scope of Article 245.

II. The People's Diligence Under C.P.L. § 245.50[5]

a. Materials Relevant to the Court's Diligence Assessment

At the outset, the Court disagrees with the defense contention that the complainants' medical records were belatedly disclosed. As the records were not in the People's actual or constructive possession, C.P.L. § 245.20[2] required only that the prosecution make a diligent, good faith effort to obtain and disclose them prior to the COC's filing. While best practice may have entailed prompter service of the subpoenas following the acquisition of the complainants' signed HIPAA authorizations, multiple trial courts have found that serving a subpoena for medical records prior to or contemporaneous with the COC's filing constitutes a diligent, good faith effort to obtain and disclose such material (see People v. Hernandez, 80 Misc 3d 1035, 1040 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]; People v Clarke, 238 NYS 3d 72 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025] ["it appears well-settled, at least in this County, that the disclosure of a complaining witness' medical records after the initial CoC is filed does not serve as a basis to invalidate it where the records were not in the People's possession or control when the initial CoC was filed, so long as there is some representation of diligence"]). Moreover, the assigned prosecutor's post-COC efforts to procure the records support a finding that the People acted diligently with regard to this material. Upon receiving a denial for records pertaining to one of the complainants, the prosecution learned that treatment was administered at a different hospital than originally reported; subsequently, the assigned prosecutor served additional subpoenas for the records, then obtained and disclosed them within a reasonable timeframe.

With regard to the IAB log attachments, the Court disagrees with the People that underlying documentation for substantiated and unsubstantiated IAB complaints is not discoverable as potential impeachment material. Nonetheless, as trial courts are split on the [*4]discoverability of these attachments (People v Jefferson M.Q., 2025 NY Slip Op 25224 [Crim Ct, Bronx County]; People v Mignott, 87 Misc 3d 1217[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]; People v Clifford, 246 NYS 3d 610, 622 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]), the Court does not consider them a potential basis to invalidate the COC. In the instant matter, were the Court persuaded that the People had exercised due diligence, the preferred remedy would be to order disclosure of the attachments.

The existence of two disputed items is uncertain, including BWC footage from the Defendant's second arrest, and a possible additional 911 call. The Court considers the possible existence of footage from the Defendant's second arrest in its assessment of the People's diligence. In contrast to the People's post-COC efforts to determine whether an additional 911 call could be located, the People recount no targeted efforts to ascertain the possible existence of this footage.

b. Assessment of C.P.L. § 245.50[5] Factors

Pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.10[1][a], the prosecution is required to serve initial discovery on the defense within thirty-five days of arraignment when the defendant is at liberty, or sixty-five days of arraignment when the discoverable materials are exceptionally voluminous or have not yet been obtained despite the People's diligent, good faith efforts. Here, the People's first attempts to gather discovery did not occur until October 14, 2025, as the assigned prosecutor mistakenly believed that a trial preparation assistant had made an initial discovery request (People's Opposition at 12-13). The assigned prosecutor's pre-COC attempts to procure discovery include three e-mails to the precinct's discovery liaison between October 14, 2025, and October 27, 2025, as well as a phone call and text to the arresting officer on October 27, 2025.

It is notable that the People's efforts to discharge their discovery obligations did not begin until the majority of the ninety-day speedy trial period had elapsed, and well after the deadline to serve initial discovery under C.P.L. § 245.10[1][a][ii]. These late-starting, time-compressed efforts weigh against a finding of due diligence (People v Othman, 85 Misc 3d 1240[A] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2025]; People v Viruet, 87 Misc 3d 1259[A] [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]). Moreover, the prosecution failed to timely obtain, and share, materials clearly referenced in other items of discovery, and their actions upon being apprised of the missing discovery lack a sense of urgency. The prosecution did not attempt to obtain the BWC footage from Officers Arroyo and Valerio until November 30, 2025, more than a month after the COC's filing and more than two weeks after defense counsel alerted the assigned prosecutor. Following an unsuccessful attempt "[o]n an unknown date in December" to find the missing footage, the prosecution first contacted the assigned detective on January 16, 2026. It was this straightforward action—calling the detective whose DD5 note referenced the BWC recordings—which ultimately produced the footage. Similarly, the assigned prosecutor first requested the missing DD5 companion case via e-mail on November 30, 2025, but received no response and made no additional efforts to follow up until she called the assigned detective on January 16, 2026.

As a prosecution for misdemeanor assault involving a single incident, the instant case is [*5]not a complex one involving voluminous or difficult to obtain materials. Moreover, each of the belatedly disclosed or still outstanding items are of a type routinely generated and shared in similar cases. Nevertheless, the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations may have been impeded by the fact that the incident was reported twice and originally charged under two separate dockets: as such, discovery gathering necessitated locating 911 calls and BWC footage from multiple dates, as well as compiling police paperwork from both Defendant's arrests.

The defense contends that the volume of discovery shared prior to the COC's filing is minimal, consisting of multiple 911 calls; BWC footage from four officers totaling approximately 40 minutes; approximately 25 pages of DD5s, generated by the assigned detectives; and approximately 100 pages of "general police paperwork" (Defense Motion at 20). The belatedly disclosed items include BWC from two officers, as well as one DD5 companion case. The still outstanding police reports include the two officers' activity logs, roll call logs, chain of custody reports, and the finalized complaint report; additionally, BWC footage from the Defendant's second arrest may exist. As such, the volume of belated and outstanding discovery is neither particularly great nor insignificant.

The People's Opposition explains the belated disclosure of the body-worn camera files from Officers Arroyo and Valerio as an oversight, stating that the assigned prosecutor overlooked a "singular" reference to the footage in the DD5s (People's Opposition at 17). However, other items possessed by the People should have alerted the prosecution that the files existed. The belatedly disclosed camera files were recorded on July 29, 2025, when officers responded to a 911 call regarding the previous day's events. At the time of the COC's filing, the prosecution possessed the 911 call from that day, as well as associated paperwork indicating that officers had been dispatched. As the prosecution is aware, the NYPD Patrol Guide instructs officers to activate their body-worn cameras when responding to emergency calls (NYPD Patrol Guide, Procedure No 212-123, available online at www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/manual.page, last visited March 18, 2026). As such, multiple discoverable items put the People on notice that this camera footage likely existed (People v Gonzalez, 86 Misc 3d 1230[A] [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]).

The non-disclosure of some discoverable items has been corrected, as the Defendant received the body-worn camera footage from Officers Arroyo and Valerio, as well as the missing DD5 companion case, in January 2026—approximately three months after the COC was filed. The two officers' activity logs, the roll call logs, chain of custody reports, and finalized complaint report have yet to be shared. Additionally, due to the People's failure to inquire into the existence of BWC footage from the Defendant's second arrest, it is unclear if this item remains outstanding.

The belatedly disclosed BWC footage is not duplicative or insignificant; the footage contains conversations between the complainants and responding officers which formed the basis for the Defendant being arrested and charged for the alleged assault on complainant N.C. The DD5 companion case, by contrast, is of little substantive value. Generated by the NYPD Warrant Squad, this document details the NYPD's efforts to find and arrest the Defendant. The [*6]People maintain that, as the body-worn camera footage was disclosed before trial, the Defendant suffered no prejudice, but the Court credits the defense assertion that the missing footage, documenting conversations with both complainants, impeded their ability to investigate and prepare for trial.

On balance, the People did not exercise due diligence under the C.P.L. § 245.50[5][a] factors. Although the discovery lapse has been partially remedied, multiple circumstances weigh against a finding of due diligence, including the importance and lateness of the belatedly disclosed camera footage, the People's last-minute efforts to obtain and share discovery prior to the COC's filing and their passive and incomplete response when apprised of missing discovery, as well as the lack of any meaningful update as to the items flagged as "currently unavailable" in the COC.

As such, the certificate of compliance, dated October 28, 2025, is invalid.

THE CPL § 30.30 CALCULATION

The first day counted for speedy trial purposes is the day after the filing of the accusatory instrument, July 30, 2025 (People v Morrison, 231 NYS 3d 922 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2025]). The speedy trial clock was first tolled on October 8, when the prosecution filed its motion to consolidate the dockets (July 30, 2025 — October 7, 2025 = 70 days). As the defense consented to consolidation within 24 hours, the speedy trial clock commenced again the next day. Although the People filed and served their COC and SOR on October 28, 2025, the COC was invalid and failed to toll the speedy trial clock. Consequently, the earliest date on which the speedy-trial clock was next tolled was October 29, 2025, when the case was adjourned for discovery conference (October 9, 2025 — October 29, 2025 = 21 days).

At least ninety-one days (91) days are chargeable to the People, and their speedy trial period has elapsed.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §§ 245.50[4][c], 30.30[1][b], and 170.30[1][e] is GRANTED.

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

Dated: March 18, 2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Deidra R. Moore, J.C.C.