People v Ford

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on April 24, 2026

Docket No. CR-028558-25BX

David L. Goodwin, J.

Pending is defendant P. Ford's^FN1 counseled omnibus motion, one branch of which seeks invalidation of the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and dismissal of the accusatory instrument on C.P.L. § 30.30 statutory speedy trial grounds. Upon review of the original and supplemental motion papers and the record of proceedings so far, and for the reasons set forth below, it is hereby ordered that the branch of the defendant's motion challenging the COC and seeking dismissal of the accusatory instrument is granted, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed. The remaining branches of the motion are denied as academic.

I. Background

As the parties are the primary audience, familiarity with the facts and procedural history is assumed. In brief, Ford is charged with third-degree assault and harassment arising out of an incident on August 21, 2025. Ford allegedly spat at the complaining witness and punched her in the face.

Ford was arrested on an I-Card on October 21, about two months later. She was arraigned one day after that.

In an automatic disclosure form dated November 5, the People listed just two officers under the heading for law enforcement personnel with evidence or information relevant to the charged offenses: Officer Nivarfalet, the arresting officer to whom a point-out identification was made, and his partner, Officer Kosseh. See People's Supp. at 4 (pdf pag.) (confirming roles of these officers). Both officers were also labeled as potential testifying witnesses.

The People filed their COC and declared ready on January 12, 2026. By that point, they had provided a discovery package that included the body-worn camera footage from Officers Nivarfalet and Kosseh, doorbell camera videos, NYPD paperwork, and activity logs for five officers: Officer Sohan, Officer Kosseh, Officer Khaleque, Officer Ahn, and Officer Nivarfalet. See COC at 6.

Seven days later, on January 19, defense counsel emailed the People to inquire about missing discovery, listing six categories of potentially missing discovery:

• Body-worn camera footage for the officers who responded on the incident date of August 21, which defense counsel believed to include Officers Khaleque, Sohan, and Ahn;

• An activity log for Officer Kosseh;

• Property vouchers and chain-of-custody reports;

• Roll call/command logs for both the incident date and arrest date;

• The complaining witness's medical records; and

• An entity report for the complaining witness.

Defense's Mot., Ex. A at 2.

The People responded the next day, indicating that the assigned was out of the office and could not address counsel's inquiries until back. Id. However, despite two additional follow-up emails from the defense on February 2 and February 11, no response from the People was forthcoming. Id. at 1-2.

II. Motion Practice and Additional Discovery Disclosures

Ford filed this motion on February 13. In the branch seeking invalidation of the COC and dismissal of the accusatory instrument, Ford identifies the same six outstanding discovery items from the earlier January 19 email, arguing that all were subject to automatic discovery and had not been timely provided to the defense.

Preemptively addressing the People's apparent lack of due diligence, Ford argues, among other things, that the People had not made a record of their efforts; that the case was not particularly complex; and that the volume of discovery provided did not dwarf that which was outstanding, especially as only two body-worn camera videos were disclosed. Defense's Mot. at 11-13. Body-worn camera footage from the incident date could be particularly important because it would have "capture[d] the conversations that took place between police and the complainant on the night that the alleged incident happened," which had yielded the I-Card that led to the [*2]defendant's arrest. Id. at 15. Ford also highlights that the People never responded to attempts at conferral—which was relevant to several of the due-diligence factors—and that the delayed disclosure impeded the preparation of a defense. See id. at 15-17.

On February 26, before they filed their response, the People provided (1) the complaining witness's medical records; (2) body-worn camera footage from the two officers who responded on the day of the incident, Officers Marquez and Harrison; and (3) body-worn camera footage from Officers Perez and Cruz, who spoke to the complaining witness on October 21 about an alleged violation of the order of protection.^FN2 As the parties largely agree, the footage from the day of the incident depicts the officers speaking with the complaining witness, who recounts what had occurred that day as well as her history with Ford, whom she specifically identified as the assailant. See Defense's Supp. at 2-3 (pdf pag.); People's Supp. at 3-4 (pdf pag.).

In their response, the People make only a limited record of their attempts to obtain discovery, mentioning (1) day-of-arraignment outreach to Officer Nivarfalet, (2) a November 5 request for Giglio materials, (3) a discussion with the complaining witness from the same day, and (4) a November 18 request for 911 records and medical records. People's Resp. Aff. ¶¶ 2, 4-6. As to the items themselves, the People point out that Officer Kosseh's activity log was disclosed at the time the COC was filed, and that the property vouchers, chain of custody reports, and entity report did not exist per the People's outreach to the precinct. The medical records and missing body-worn camera footage had otherwise been disclosed on February 26, and the roll call/command logs had been obtained and disclosed to the defense in early March. See People's Resp. at 8-10.

Before Ford filed her reply, defense counsel requested the activity logs from the two "new" officers who had responded on the incident date, and who had not previously been identified. Those activity logs were disclosed on March 11, one day later. See Defense's Reply, Ex. D at 1.

In her eventual reply, and in addition to reiterating her arguments, Ford concedes that Officer Kosseh's activity log had been timely disclosed and accepts the People's representation that the property vouchers, chain of custody reports, and entity report do not exist. See Defense's Reply at 4 & nn.1-3. But although Ford is "now in receipt of almost all automatically discoverable materials," the COC should still be invalidated because the People had not exercised reasonable diligence before certifying their discovery compliance and declaring ready. Among other things, the People had made no real record of their attempts to obtain and disclose [*3]the missing discovery. See Defense's Reply at 7-8.

On April 20, the parties were directed to file supplemental responses addressing (1) when the relevant footage was provided; (2) what is depicted in the footage; and (3) what role, if any, was played by the officers whose footage was belatedly provided. Supplemental Briefing Order. Their responses are incorporated into the recitation above.

III. Legal Standard

In a case like this one, where the top count is a misdemeanor punishable by a custodial sentence of more than three months, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). If they are not ready within that 90-day window, the accusatory instrument must be dismissed on motion by the defense. C.P.L. §§ 30.30(1)(b), 170.30(e); People v. Labate, 42 NY3d 184, 190 (2024).

Under the current discovery laws, the People must comply with their discovery obligations before declaring ready for trial. See C.P.L. § 30.30(5)(a). The People do so by, among other things, filing a COC.

A COC is valid if the People have exercised due diligence and good faith in fulfilling their discovery obligations. C.P.L. §§ 30.30(5)(a)-(b), 245.50(6). This requires the People to make "reasonable" efforts and inquiries to comply with their statutory responsibilities. People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211 (2023). Factors relevant to diligence include:

the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of this article; 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; 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). The People's diligence must be assessed holistically, rather than line-by-line, with no one factor or shortcoming being determinative. Id. § 245.50(5)(b); People v. McMahon, 237 AD3d 746, 751 (2d Dept. 2025). The People bear the burden of establishing their own diligence. Bay, 41 NY3d at 213.

IV. Discussion

The scope of the discovery dispute in this case is somewhat narrow. Ordinarily, that would weigh in favor of the People. As explained below, however, three core issues tip the scales back in the opposite direction: (1) the centrality of the missing discovery, and the repercussions it has for the People's readiness and the state of their earlier disclosures; (2) the lack of information about the People's efforts to obtain the discovery; and (3) the absence of conferral-period responses to defense counsel's outreach. On this record, the People have therefore not met their burden of showing due diligence.

Beginning with scope: a full half of the original six bullet points from the conferral and initial motion are no longer in play. As Ford concedes, Officer Kosseh's activity log was timely [*4]disclosed, and the property vouchers, chain-of-custody reports, and entity report do not exist.

Meanwhile, a fourth bullet point, the complaining witness's medical records, is no longer legally relevant. Joining the Third and Fourth Departments, the First Department has now squarely held that "records . . . in the possession and control of third parties not under the prosecution's direction or control" are outside of the People's "initial discovery obligation[s]" and, by extension, do not affect the "validity of the People's COC," which is measured solely by compliance with those initial discovery obligations. People v. Haggan, — AD3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op. 02462, at *1 (1st Dept. 2026) (citing People v Walker, 232 AD3d 1214, 1215-16 (4th Dept. 2024)); see also People v. Dibble, 247 AD3d 1566, — (4th Dept. 2026); People v. Branton, 238 AD3d 1429, 1431 (3d Dept. 2025); People v. Radford, 237 AD3d 1511, 1512 (4th Dept. 2025). Accordingly, any delay on that front does not undermine the COC, at least for the period before the People were actually in possession of the records.

The only disputes that remain are the roll call/command logs and the body-worn camera footage. Unfortunately for the People, the latter weighs heavily against a showing of due diligence.

First, there was absolutely no ambiguity that the original incident took place in August, not October. And while it would have been possible for there to be no footage from the incident date, it appears that the defense had no trouble concluding, from the discovery provided, that officers had responded to the scene in August. Despite that, the People do not explain, in the COC or elsewhere, what efforts were made to determine whether body-worn camera footage from the incident date was available, and whether they made inquiries about that footage before declaring ready.

Second, the footage is material. Based on the parties' description, it depicts officers interviewing the complaining witness, learning about an alleged long-term dispute with Ford, and gathering the information that would ultimately lead to the creation of the I-Card and Ford's arrest months later. This information—statements directly from the complainant, the formation of probable cause, and so on—would directly bear on the defense's ability to prepare for both hearings and trial. And none of it was duplicative because, as discussed momentarily, the defense did not otherwise have a direct line into the underlying incident.

Third, the omission of the footage creates a domino effect for the People's exercise of diligence overall. Recall that only Officers Nivarfarlet and Kosseh were listed in the People's automatic disclosure form as law enforcement personnel with evidence or information relevant to the charged offenses. As is now apparent, however, that list was woefully incomplete; Officers Nivarfarlet and Kosseh should have been accompanied by Officers Marquez, Harrison, Perez, and Cruz at the very least. The People apparently did not provide information that those officers existed, let alone tender their body-worn cameras and activity logs. This is a fairly significant core discovery shortcoming, implicating the People's very readiness for hearings and trial.

All this, of course, pertains to but one discovery lapse, albeit one with significant [*5]repercussions. As both decisional law and the post-August-2025 Article 245 revisions make clear, the People's diligence must be assessed based on a holistic consideration of all relevant factors. See C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(b). Were the People to have provided an explanation for this lapse, or a record of discovery outreach showing multiple attempts to ascertain the existence of and disclose all relevant material, the People might nevertheless have been able to establish that they "made reasonable efforts to identify mandatory discovery prior to filing the COC"—the "key question in determining if a proper COC has been filed." Bay, 41 NY3d at 204, 211.

But that record has not been made. The People have said very little about their efforts both before and after declaring ready. It is therefore difficult to determine whether their efforts to discharge their statutory discovery obligations were reasonable, let alone sufficient to counterbalance an error of this magnitude. Since the People bear the burden of showing diligence, they must ensure that the record is "properly developed" so that a court may "consider whether the People exercised due diligence" within the meaning of the discovery laws. People v. Martinez-Perez, 87 Misc 3d 130(A), 2025 NY Slip Op. 51648(U), at *1 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2025). Here, though, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit that finding. See People v. Adams, 88 Misc 3d 131(A), 2026 NY Slip Op 50233(U), at *2 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2026) (concluding that the People did not meet their burden when, among other things, they "provide[d] no information as to what they initially requested of the police department or when they requested it"); People v. Zeigler, 88 Misc 3d 131(A), 2026 NY Slip Op 50232(U), at *2 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2026) (concluding that the People did not meet their burden when, among other things, they "made only vague assertions regarding their efforts to obtain the required items").

Compounding matters, while the People were eventually able to correct the error, they did not do so within the 35-day period for post-COC conferral. In fact, the People did not confer at all with the defense during that time, although errors fixed within that window can have their impact diminished or even eliminated. Cf. People v. Whitney, — Misc 3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op. 25248, at *5 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (David, J.). The reason provided, at least initially, was that the assigned was out of the office; and, to be clear, diligence does not inherently require an attorney from a busy office to interrupt a vacation to address discovery objections. But that does not explain the lack of communication afterwards, especially when, as here, defense counsel's initial outreach was a little over a week after the COC had been filed and served. The lack of responsive conferral, paired with the inability to correct this error within the conferral window and the lack of any record suggesting a diligent effort to fix the error, weighs heavily against a finding of appropriate diligence.

In sum, a holistic assessment of the relevant factors, see McMahon, 237 AD3d at 751, reveals a reasonable-but-not-overwhelming discovery proffer in a fairly straightforward case, undermined by a significant discovery lapse implicating the People's core readiness—one that was not fixed or even addressed at all within the conferral window, and which is not otherwise part of a broader record evincing reasonable efforts by the People to comply with their statutory discovery obligations. The People have not met their burden, which they bear, of showing due diligence, so their COC is not valid.

* * *

For the reasons set forth above, the People's COC is deemed invalid, and did not stop the speedy trial § 30.30 clock. Since the 90-day period applicable to class A misdemeanors expired, at the latest, on January 20, 2026, dismissal is required. See Labate, 42 NY3d at 190.

Accordingly, Ford's motion to dismiss is granted, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed. Unless the People make an application to stay sealing, the matter is also sealed as of the day this decision is issued and the matter is called on the record. The balance of Ford's omnibus motion is denied as academic.

Dated: April 24, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court