People v Raposo

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

Decided on April 29, 2026

Docket No. CR-034721-25NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

The defense first moves this court to find the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and to dismiss this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). The People oppose, arguing that the motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) and that they exercised due diligence, regardless of any lapses.

In the alternative, the defense moves for an order suppressing a statement the defendant allegedly made to law enforcement (People v Huntley, 59 NY2d 868 [1983], Dunaway v New York, 422 US 200 [1979]); suppressing tangible evidence as the fruit of an illegal seizure (Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, 645 [1961]); granting a bill of particulars (CPL 200.95); and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial (People v Sandoval, 43 NY2d 371 [1974]).

I. Relevant Facts

The defendant was arrested and charged on November 8, 2025, with violating VTL §§ 511 (2) (a) (iv), 1212, and 509 (1) for allegedly driving an all-terrain vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street with a suspended license. On November 9, 2025, the defendant was arraigned on a criminal court complaint and released on his own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to December 11, 2025, for conversion.

On December 11, 2025, the complaint was deemed an information. The People had not filed a COC and were not ready for trial. The court adjourned the case to February 3, 2026, for trial.

On February 3, 2026, the People stated that they were not ready for trial because they had not filed a COC. The case was adjourned to February 17, 2026, for trial. After court on [*2]February 3, 2026, the People produced discovery to the defense and filed and served a COC, COR, and superseding information.

On February 5, 2026, after producing additional discovery, the People filed and served a supplemental COC (SCOC) and a COR.

On February 9, 2026, after producing additional discovery, the People filed and served a second SCOC and another COR.

On February 11, 2026, the Legal Aid Society attorney assigned to this case emailed the People to confer about discovery. Defense counsel specifically requested "witness information" and "co-defendant information," about which the parties continued to confer over the next several days.

On February 17, 2026, the People answered ready for trial. Defense counsel requested a motion schedule, and the case was adjourned to April 17, 2026, for decision. On February 19, 2026, defense counsel notified the People that they had a conflict and would be requesting to be relieved. The case was advanced to March 3, 2026, for new counsel to be assigned.

On March 3, 2026, current defense counsel was assigned to represent the defendant. The defense requested a new motion schedule, and the court adjourned the case to May 1, 2026, for decision.

On April 6, 2026, the defense served their motion^FN1 on the People. Defense counsel's affirmation does not contain any claim that he conferred or attempted to confer with the People regarding the matters raised in the COC challenge. In the motion, the defense argues that the People failed to meet their discovery obligations by not timely producing a radio run and a CCRB report for a testifying officer.^FN2

On April 20, 2026, the People filed an opposition. The People argue that the motion must be denied because it does not contain an affirmation of conferral and because the People exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC. The People assert that prior defense counsel conferred about discovery matters not at issue in this motion, whereas current defense counsel did not confer with them regarding discovery.

The defense reply was due on April 24, 2026. Defense counsel has neither filed a reply nor contacted the court to request an extension. Accordingly, the court decides this motion solely on the submitted papers.

II. The COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will typically first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50255[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, if the motion satisfies those requirements, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People [*3]v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Finally, if the court finds that any discovery violations occurred, the court will then examine the violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith" in discharging their duties (CPL 245.50 [5], [6]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 [2023]).

Here, the defense has not satisfied the CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) provision that a motion challenging a COC " shall be accompanied by an affirmation by the moving party that, after the filing of the opposing party's [COC], such moving party timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the opposing party or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached." The uncontested factual allegations show that the defendant's prior attorney conferred with the People regarding discovery matters not at issue in this motion, and that present counsel did not confer with the People prior to submitting their motion. In particular, neither attorney conferred with the People "regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for" this COC challenge (CPL 245.50 [4] [c]).

The COC challenge is therefore DENIED, and the People's February 3 COC is deemed VALID.

III. CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of up to 180 days and no felonies, the People must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]).

From the defendant's arraignment on November 9, 2025, to the filing of the People's COC and COR on February 3, 2026, 86 days are chargeable to the People. No additional time is chargeable. The People's February 3 COR was valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since that date.The court finds that 86 days are charged to the People, and the defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

IV. Omnibus Motion

The motion to suppress is granted to the extent that a combined Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearing is ordered. The defense is entitled to a Huntley hearing even if their factual allegations are deficient, and a Huntley hearing is therefore granted (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b], [4]). Further, in this case, the Mapp and Dunaway motions are "grounded in the same facts involving the same police witnesses" as the Huntley motion and will not significantly alter the scope of the hearing. The court therefore "deem[s] it appropriate in the exercise of discretion" to order Mapp and Dunaway hearings as well, regardless of any pleading deficiencies (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415, 429 [1993]). The request for an adjournment after hearings and before trial is referred to the hearing court.

The motion for a bill of particulars is denied. The People filed a bill of particulars as part of their automatic disclosure form. That document and the accusatory instrument contain all the information the defense has demanded that is authorized in a bill of particulars (CPL 200.95 [5]).

Finally, the motion to preclude evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are directed to provide supplemental discovery to the defense as soon as practicable and at least fifteen days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [*4][b]).

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: April 29, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.