People v Paulino

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

Decided on April 30, 2026

CR-033907-25NY

Elizabeth Y. Shamahs, J.

On October 28, 2025, at approximately 7:37 PM, at the intersection of West 140th Street and Broadway, New York, New York, defendant, John Paulino, operated a motor vehicle bearing a forged temporary Georgia license plate. Defendant also drove against traffic, drove through multiple red lights, and drove in the opposite lane.

For these acts, defendant was arrested and charged in New York County Criminal Court with one count of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree (Penal Law [PL] 170.20), and one count of Reckless Driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law [VTL] 1212).

Thereafter, the People began obtaining discovery. The assigned prosecutor reached out to coordinate with several different departments and liaisons within the New York County District Attorney's Office that have been established to streamline communication and effectuate obtaining discovery from law enforcement agencies, such as a Body Worn Camera (BWC) Unit, a Law Enforcement Disclosure (LED) Unit, and a Litigation Support Unit (LSU). From agencies, the People obtained and disclosed approximately one-hundred-and-forty (140) pieces of discovery with defense counsel, before filing and serving a Certificate of Compliance (COC) and Statement of Readiness (SOR) with defense counsel and the Court, on January 8, 2026. The disclosures consisted of activity logs for all testifying witnesses, vehicle records, photographs, surveillance footage, NYPD arrest paperwork, BWC videos, law enforcement witness information including NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) paperwork and Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) paperwork, miscellaneous items, and more.

On January 30, 2026, the prosecutor emailed defense counsel, requesting an unredacted rental agreement in relation to a previously offered plea.

On January 31, defense counsel acknowledged receipt of the prosecutor's email and notified the prosecutor of purportedly missing discovery, namely, paperwork and/or activity logs [*2]for two officers and any corroborating paperwork as to the fraudulent license plate. Defense counsel requested that the prosecutor investigate his request and provide any remaining outstanding discovery.

On February 4, 2026, the parties appeared in court for trial. The People were ready with an officer available to testify but defense counsel requested the instant motion schedule. Defense counsel noted to the Court that he requested discovery from the People but received no response.

On February 9, 2026, the prosecutor notified defense counsel that she was sharing the requested activity logs for the two officers and that there were no documents corroborating the forged license plate. The People additionally provided a vehicle report. The People filed a Supplemental Certificate of Compliance (SCOC) and SOR the following day to reflect these disclosures.

Now, in papers dated March 11, 2026, defendant, through counsel, moves this Court to invalidate the People's COC on the ground that activity logs and vehicle report were belatedly disclosed and that law enforcement witness disciplinary records remain undisclosed. He further argues that, consequently, the People's SOR was illusory and that he has been denied a speedy trial, warranting dismissal of the accusatory instrument. Defense counsel affirms that, in accordance with Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 245.50(4), he conferred with the prosecutor in effort to reach an accommodation prior to filing the motion, but the parties were unable to resolve the issues raised.

The People oppose in papers dated March 27, 2026, arguing that defendant's motion should be denied for failing to comport with CPL 245.50(4) for several reasons. Namely, that defendant's motion challenge was filed sixty-two (62) days after the expiration of the thirty-five (35) day deadline to challenge the People's COC, absent any good cause extension from this Court. Secondly, defendant failed to confer about the "specific and particularized matters forming the basis" of his challenge as defendant never requested activity logs for a certain officer, vehicle report, or law enforcement disciplinary records for two officers. Thirdly, defendant failed to establish that efforts to obtain missing discovery or otherwise resolve discovery issues during conferrals with the prosecutor were unsuccessful and that no accommodation could be reached and that accommodations were provided to him nine days after his request. The People additionally argue that, in any event, their COC was valid, filed in good faith after exercising due diligence, and that the belated disclosures do not vitiate the validity of the initial COC. They additionally argue that defendant's claimed undisclosed materials do not constitute automatic discovery and consequently cannot vitiate the validity of the COC.

In reply papers dated April 9, 2026, defendant argues that his motion is timely because he notified the prosecutor of discovery qualms twenty-four (24) days after the filing of the COC, did not receive a response, and raised discovery issues to this Court on February 4, 2026, requesting the instant motion schedule, twenty-nine (29) days after the COC.

As recently amended, effective August 7, 2025, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) article 245 requires the People to disclose to a defendant "material and information in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or under the prosecution's direction and control," and provides a non-exhaustive list of materials subject to "automatic" disclosure. CPL § 245.20(1). Under CPL § 245.20(2), the People are required to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under [CPL § 245.20(1)] and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control." The People are not required, however, [*3]"to obtain material or information if it may be obtained with the use of a subpoena duces tecum where the defense is able to obtain the same material with the use of a subpoena duces tecum." CPL § 245.20(2).

The People must also certify their discovery compliance in writing by filing a COC. Importantly, the People may file their COC even if they have not yet disclosed all automatically discoverable items provided that they have "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide the discovery required by [CPL § 245.20(1)]." CPL§ 245.50(1). The COC must "state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries and efforts to ascertain the existence of, obtain, and disclose material and information subject to discovery, the prosecution has disclosed and made available all known material and information it has obtained subject to discovery." CPL § 245.50(1). The COC must also identify "the items provided" and "the items that the prosecution is required to disclose and of which the prosecution is aware but has been unable to obtain despite the exercise of due diligence as evaluated under this section." CPL § 245.50(1). If the People provide additional discovery in connection with their ongoing obligations outlined in CPL § 245.60, they must file "a supplemental certificate" that "identif[ies] the additional material and information provided." CPL §245.50(1). A SCOC will not impact the validity of the original COC if filed in good faith and after exercising due diligence or when the additional discovery did not exist when the initial COC was filed. CPL §245.50(1-a).

Once the People file a COC, a defendant must notify the People of any potential deficiencies in the COC by making "good faith efforts to confer with the [prosecution] regarding the specific and particularized matters" regarding the allegedly missing discovery. Then, if "no accommodation can be reached," the defense may file a motion to invalidate the People's COC provided that: (1) they do so within thirty-five days of the service of the People's COC; and (2) they file an accompanying affirmation of conferral stating that the defense "conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the [prosecution] regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the [prosecution] or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached." CPL § 245.50(4)(b)-(c). Significantly, the statute further specifies that "the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as provided in [CPL § 245.80]." CPL § 245.50(1). Any such remedy or sanction must be "appropriate and proportionate to the prejudice suffered by the party entitled to disclosure." CPL §245.80(1).

To determine the validity of the People's COC, a reviewing court must assess the People's due diligence. As the Court of Appeals held in People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 (2023), due diligence is a "flexible standard that requires the People to make reasonable efforts to comply with statutory directives." Bay, 41 NY3d at 211 (internal quotation marks omitted). "Reasonableness, then, is the touchstone--a concept confirmed by the statutory directive to make 'reasonable inquiries.'" Id. at 211-12. Moreover, the Court recognized that, "[a]lthough the relevant factors for assessing due diligence may vary from case to case, courts should generally consider, among other things:" (1) "the efforts made by the prosecution and the prosecutor's office to comply with the statutory requirements;" (2) "the volume of discovery provided and outstanding;" (3) "the complexity of the case;" (4) "how obvious any missing material would likely have been to a prosecutor exercising due diligence;" (5) "the explanation for any discovery lapse;" and (6) "the People's response when apprised of any missing discovery." Id. at [*4]212. These six factors are now part of the statutory due-diligence analysis under CPL § 245.50(5)(a). This section also requires courts to consider whether: (1) "the belated discovery was substantively duplicative, insignificant, or easily remedied;" (2) "the omission was corrected;" (3) "the prosecution self-reported the error and took prompt remedial action without court intervention;" and (4) "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." CPL § 245.50(5)(a). A reviewing court must "look at the totality of the party's efforts to comply with the provisions of [article 245], rather than assess the party's efforts item by item." CPL § 245.50(5). The statute further directs that "[t]he court's determination shall be based on consideration of all factors listed in [CPL § 245.50(5)(a)] and no one factor shall be determinative." CPL § 245.50(5)(b).

Indeed, the Bay decision made clear that, in assessing the validity of a COC, the reviewing court should engage in a "holistic assessment of the People's efforts to comply with the automatic discovery provisions, rather than a strict item-by-item test that would require [a court] to conclude that a COC is improper if the People miss even one item of discovery." People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216, 1220 (4th Dept 2024); see also People v Williams, 224 AD3d 998, 1006-07 (3d Dept 2024) (People's COC was valid even though three discoverable items had not been disclosed where People provided "extensive" discovery before filing COC, identified missing items when they filed the COC, and acknowledged their duty to provide missing items upon receipt). Notably, "[a]rticle 245 is not intended for use as a 'sword,' whereby [ADAs] are expected to run themselves ragged in at times futile or near-futile attempts to procure material in which defense counsel has no substantive interest beyond exhausting the People's statutory speedy trial time or hoping that the People, in frustration, opt to abandon the prosecution." People v Barrios, 82 Misc 3d 606, 613 (Crim Ct Bronx Co 2024); see also People v Thompson, 79 Misc 3d 1220(A), *2 (Crim Ct Kings Co 2023) (article 245 "does not require the impossible; it does not demand that every scrap of discoverable information be turned over before the People may file a [COC]") (internal quotation marks omitted).

Furthermore, certain delays or discovery issues should not invalidate a COC that was made in good faith, after the exercise of due diligence and efforts made by the prosecution to comply with statutory obligations. Bay at 210-213. If the delay is a result of oversights in the production of material, delayed discovery of the existence of certain items, a good faith position that the material in question was not discoverable, or voluminous files, the Bay decision clearly posits that a court should apply a "holistic assessment" of the efforts made by the People to comply with their discovery obligations when evaluating the validity of a COC. Id. Moreover, several courts have found that certain delays or discovery issues should not invalidate a COC that was made in good faith, after the exercise of due diligence, and where, for example, the delay was a result of oversights in the production of material, delayed discovery of the existence of certain items, voluminous discovery, non-existent items, or material unrelated to the case. People v Cano, 71 Misc 3d 728 (Sup Ct, Queens County 2020); People v Lustig, 68 Misc 3d 234 (Sup Ct, Queens County 2020) (Zayas, J)(court found the People's certificate of compliance to be valid, since it was clearly filed in good faith under CPL § 245.50(1) and, therefore, no adverse consequence to the prosecution should result from the fact that the certificate was filed prior to the disclosure of the database search results).

As a preliminary matter, this Court addresses whether defendant's motion was filed after the expiration of the 35-day time limit to challenge the People's COC, as the People assert. See [*5]CPL § 245.50 (4)(c). As initially noted, CPL § 245.50 (4)(c) provides that COC challenges "shall be addressed by motion within thirty-five days of the service of the certificate." The court may extend the 35-day limit "[u]pon request" and "for good cause shown," but the statute specifies that "[a] request for extension shall be made before the expiration of the thirty-five days" (CPL §245.50 [4][c][i]). Such extensions are excluded from a speedy trial calculation except in cases of unreasonable prosecutorial delay or bad faith (id.). The statute also allows filing outside the 35-day period "where the grounds for such challenge are based upon a material change in circumstances, including but not limited to the belated disclosure of discoverable material," or "where the party entitled to disclosure could not, with due diligence, have known of the specific and particularized matters forming the basis of the challenge prior to the expiration of such period" (CPL 245.50 § [4][c][ii]).

Here, this Court finds that defendant's motion is untimely, filed after the expiration of the 35-day deadline without any good cause extensions from this Court. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, this Court's granting of a motion schedule is not synonymous with the granting of a good cause extension to file a COC challenge under CPL 245.50(4)(c). This Court did not allow any extensions of time to file a COC challenge and there were no good cause applications made to this Court. Instead, defense counsel merely requested a motion schedule, which he received. Nothing about the Court's motion schedule changed defense counsel's statutory obligation to file his challenge within the 35-day deadline or expressly move this Court for an extension to file upon a requisite showing of good cause within the same deadline. If defense counsel wished to receive an extension of time to file his challenge for good cause shown at the February 4, 2026 court date, then he had to expressly move for it under the terms of the statute. He did not. It is not incumbent upon this Court to count calendar days or manage deadlines for defense counsels — or the People, for that matter. Nor does the statute suggest that there exists any type of implied good cause extension. To the contrary, "the legislature clearly intended to impose strict timeliness requirements for COC challenges that courts will apply uniformly. The statute sets a specific timeline and makes clear that the penalty for failure to comply with its timeliness provision is waiver of the COC challenge." People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op 50255(U) (Crim Ct NY Co 2026) (Coleman, J). Likewise, defendant has also failed to assert a material change in circumstance or that he could not, without due diligence, have known of the specific and particularized matters of his challenge that would allow for filing outside of the statutory period (CPL 245.50 § [4][c][ii]). Accordingly, defendant's motion is untimely and subject to a mandatory procedural bar.

Defendant's motion is also procedurally barred on the ground that defense counsel failed to confer about the "specific and particularized matters forming the basis" of his challenge because a review of the discovery conferrals demonstrates that, as the People correctly point out, defense counsel never notified the prosecutor of some of the items he now claims as a defect, namely, activity logs for an officer and law enforcement disciplinary records for two officers.^FN1 Defendant, therefore, raises these items to the People, for the first time, by COC challenge. It thusly cannot be said that defendant informed the People of the "specific and particularized matters forming the basis" of a COC challenge — as he must. Accordingly, these claims are also [*6]procedurally barred.

Defendant's motion is furthermore denied because counsel's affirmation fails to establish that "no accommodation could be reached" after speaking with the prosecutor prior to seeking court intervention. CPL 245.50(4). As initially noted, in order to challenge the People's COC, defense counsel must file an accompanying affirmation of conferral stating that the defense "conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the [prosecution] regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge, that efforts to obtain the missing discovery from the [prosecution] or otherwise resolve the issues raised were unsuccessful, and that no accommodation could be reached." Id. Defendant's argument that he abided by the statute as he requested the items from the People, received no response, sought court intervention by motion schedule, and only finally received the items after this Court's motion schedule is technically true but meritless. The record demonstrates defense counsel requested discovery on Saturday, January 31, 2026, received no response from the prosecutor who he had already been conferring with for the next three calendar days, requested and received the instant motion schedule at the Wednesday, February 4, 2026 calendar call, and received the requested discovery on Monday February 9, 2026 — nine calendar days after he made the request, and filed the current motion on March 11, 2026. Thus, defense counsel expeditiously received the requested accommodations — the belatedly disclosed items — nine days after speaking to the prosecutor and long before he ever filed the current motion. Defendant, therefore, received expeditious "accommodations" and conferral attempts were successful. That should have ended the matter as to these items. See People v Whitney, 245 NYS3d 900, 906 (Crim Ct NY Co 2025); People v Garcia, 2026 NY Slip Op 50367(U) (Crim Ct Bronx Co 2026). Accordingly, defendant's motion is procedurally barred on this ground as well and defendant has waived the right to challenge the People's COC.

In any event, defendant's motion is without merit. A "holistic assessment" of the People's disclosures, papers, court file, COC, and supplemental COCs filed demonstrates that their initial disclosures were substantial and extensive, especially in comparison to the few items defendant takes issue with, and the People's belated disclosures were reasonable under the circumstances. After defense counsel requested additional discovery, the People were responsive to those requests to resolve any potential discovery lapses as they made various attempts to provide defense counsel with requested materials and did so, continuing to confer with defense counsel. The People also self-reported errors providing discovery without any request from defendant. The belated disclosures were substantially duplicative and insignificant. Defendant, also, remains entirely unprejudiced. There has been no hearing or trial and not a single witness has been sworn. In addition, the New York County District Attorney's Office has made considerable and laudable efforts to facilitate discovery compliance, such as a creating BWC, LED, and LSU units and assigning paralegals and support staff to obtain discovery. "The creation of these additional units and allocation of resources to generally address their discovery obligations under CPL Article 245 support a finding of due diligence on the part of the [New York] County District Attorney's Office in fulfillment of their discovery obligation in this case." People v Antunez, 86 Misc 3d 1265(A), *5 (Sup Ct Queens Co 2025) (Yavinsky, J). Finally, many of defendant's complained about items are not subject to discovery, namely, law enforcement disciplinary records for non-testifying officers. People v Cooperman, 225 AD3d 1216 (4th Dept 2024). Taken together, this all demonstrates that the People's COC, made in good faith and after exercising due diligence, was valid.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, defendant's motion is denied. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. In light of this determination, the Court need not reach defendant's speedy trial claim.

The foregoing constitutes the Opinion, Decision, and Order of the Court.

Dated: April 30, 2026

New York, New York

ELIZABETH Y. SHAMAHS, J.C.C.