People v N.H.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Decided on April 22, 2026

Docket No. CR-051106-25KN

Masateru Marubashi, J.

Defendant is charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00(1)); Menacing in the Second Degree (PL § 120.14(1)); Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.01(2)); Attempted Assault in the third Degree (PL § 110/120.00(1)); and Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26(1)). By a motion filed on February 26, 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 on March 19, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is granted.

The criminal action commenced with the filing of a misdemeanor complaint on October 23, 2025. On January 21, 2026, the People served a COC and statement of readiness (SOR) on defense counsel. On January 29, 2026, the People filed a COC and SOR. The People filed and served a supplemental certificate of compliance (SCOC) on March 19, 2026.

Defendant's Challenge of the People's Certificate of Compliance

The defendant argues that the People failed to turn over documents regarding the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator, communications between the complainant and the police officers, police paperwork, body worn camera footage and audit trails, EMS information, and information related to an FIS search as required by CPL § 245.20(1). In response, the People assert that they filed their COC in good faith after the exercise of due diligence and that their certification is therefore 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 subject to discovery." (CPL § 245.50 [1].)

Pursuant to CPL § 245.20(4)(b), challenges to the validity of a COC "must be filed within 35 days of service of the certificate." While the defendant correctly notes that the People's COC and SOR were not filed with the Court until January 29, 2026, this does not make their motion timely. The plain language of the statute makes clear that their challenge to the COC must be filed within 35 days of service.

Here, the People's COC was served on the defendant on January 21, 2026. As such, the defendant's motion to challenge the People's COC was due no later than February 25, 2026. In this case, the defendant's motion was untimely in that it was filed on February 26, 2026, which was 36 days after the People served their COC on the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has, in effect, waived any challenges to the People's COC and his motion to challenge the People's COC is denied.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Speedy Trial Violation

CPL § 30.30(1)(b) requires the People to be ready within 90 days of arraignment for the charged offenses in this case. After a careful review of the defendant's motion and the People's response, the court finds that 93 chargeable days have accrued since the defendant's arraignment. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is granted based on the below calculations.

October 23, 2025, to December 18, 2025

On October 23, 2025, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint. The defendant was released, and the matter was adjourned to December 18, 2025, for the People to file their COC.

56 chargeable days.

December 18, 2025, to December 23, 2025

On December 18, 2025, the defendant did not appear in court. The People have not yet filed their COC. The Court stayed a bench warrant and adjourned the matter to December 23, 2025, for the defendant to appear.

This adjournment is excludable pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(c)(i).

0 chargeable days.

December 23, 2025, to January 30, 2026

On December 23, 2025, the defendant appeared in court. The People had not yet filed their COC. The matter was adjourned to January 30, 2026, for the People to file their COC. On January 21, 2026, the People served a COC and SOR upon the defendant. On January 29, 2026, the People filed a COC and SOR with the Court.

CPL § 245.20(3) provides that "the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a valid certificate pursuant to" CPL § 245.20(1). The People assert that they served their COC and SOR on January 21, 2026. However, their service on defendant is not sufficient to establish their trial readiness. Unlike CPL § 245.20(4)(b), subsection three of the statute makes the People's statement of readiness effective upon the filing of the COC and not service on defendant. "When the legislature uses distinct terms in subdivisions of a statute, the corresponding meanings should be construed as intended. Courts must give effect to all the language employed by the particular legislation." (People v Brancoccio, 83 NY2d 638 [1994] citing Matter of Albano v Kirby, 36 NY2d 526, 530 [1971] and Ferrin v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 71 NY2d 42, 47 [1987].)

The use of the word "filed" in subsection three as opposed to the use of the word "service" in subsection four shows a clear intention by the legislature to set a different [*2]requirement for the People's statement of readiness than that for the defendant's COC challenge. Whereas the defendant's opposition is triggered by receiving notice of the People's declaration that they have complied with their discovery obligations, the People's trial readiness can only be communicated in open court or by written notice of readiness sent to the clerk of the court. (see People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985].) Notice to the defendant alone is not sufficient.

Here, although the People served the defendant with their COC and SOR on January 21, 2026, they did not file the documents with the Court until January 29, 2026. Therefore, the People were not ready for trial until January 29, 2026.

37 chargeable days.

January 30, 2026, to February 6, 2026

On January 30, 2026, the defendant did not appear in court. The Court stayed a bench warrant and adjourned the matter to February 6, 2026, for the defendant to appear.

This adjournment is excludable pursuant to CPL § 30.30(4)(c)(i).

0 chargeable days.

February 6, 2026, to April 22, 2026

On February 6, 2026, the defendant appeared in court. The Court adjourned the matter to April 22, 2026, for decision. On February 26, 2026, the defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss.

In conclusion, the People have accrued a total of 93 chargeable days since the defendant's arraignment and the defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore granted.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: April 22, 2026

Kings County, New York

Hon. Masateru Marubashi

Judge of the Criminal Court