People v Martinez

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

Decided on May 6, 2026

CR-035675-25NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

The defense 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). Specifically, the defense argues that the People failed to meet their discovery obligations under CPL § 245.20 by not timely disclosing: (1) 911 records, (2) a photograph of the complainant's injuries, (3) an Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) "Disclosure Index" for a testifying officer, and (4) IAB logs for a non-testifying officer. The People oppose, arguing that the motion is untimely, that the defense failed to sufficiently confer before filing the motion, that the IAB materials are not discoverable, and that they exercised due diligence.

For the reasons that follow, the defense motion is DENIED.

I. Relevant Facts

The defendant is charged with violating PL §§ 120.00 and 120.14, among other offenses, for allegedly threatening and physically attacking the complainant on November 14 and November 18, 2025. The defendant was arrested on November 18, 2025, and arraigned the following day. The defendant was released on recognizance, and the case was adjourned to February 3, 2026, for conversion of the criminal complaint.

On December 11, 2025, the People produced initial discovery to the defense, and on January 22, 2026, they produced further material. On February 2, 2026, the People provided additional discovery to the defense along with a COC, COR, and superseding information. The COC indicated that the 911 call, radio run, and associated documents were not in the People's actual possession and thus had not been produced because of an NYPD backlog.

On February 3, 2026, the People filed their COC, COR, and superseding information with the court. The court (Shamahs, J.) conducted an inquiry into the People's readiness pursuant to CPL § 30.30 (5) (a) and deemed the People ready for trial. The matter was adjourned for defense counsel to review discovery, confer with the People, and, if necessary, file a COC challenge.

On February 4, 2026, defense counsel emailed the People regarding the discovery, noting [*2]the absence of the 911 calls, radio runs, and related documents; disciplinary records for PO Oleksandra Simus, whom the People identified as a testifying officer; and photographs of the complainant's injuries. Fifteen minutes later, the People responded that they no longer intended to call PO Simus as a witness and would follow up with the arresting officer regarding the injury photographs.

On February 6, 2026, defense counsel emailed the People a list of allegedly missing discovery. In relevant part, the email listed the 911 calls, radio runs, and related documents; injury photographs; IAB logs for PO Simus; and an IAB disclosure index for PO Vincent Bardouille, a testifying witness. The People again confirmed that the 911 calls, radio runs, and related documents had been ordered but were not in their possession because of the backlog. Regarding the injury photographs, the People stated that they had spoken with the arresting officer earlier that day and that he would look into the matter. As to the law enforcement disciplinary records, the People stated that the records had been ordered for both witnesses.

On February 17, 2026, the People produced further outstanding material and filed and served a supplemental COC (SCOC). Specifically, the People produced a 911 call recording, a radio run, a photograph of the complainant's injury, and IAB logs for PO Simus. The People had not yet obtained the disclosure index for PO Bardouille.

On March 3, 2026, the parties appeared in court. The defense informed the court that they intended to file a motion challenging the People's COC. The defense noted that the 35-day limit had not yet expired, updated the court about their discovery conferrals, and explained that they needed approximately three weeks to file a COC challenge. The court granted their request for a motion schedule, setting a new deadline of March 24, 2026, and adjourned the case to May 7, 2026, for decision.

On March 24, 2026, defense counsel emailed the court requesting a further extension because she had been on trial. The court granted the extension to March 30, 2026.

On March 30, 2026, the defense filed their motion challenging the People's COC. The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because of their failure to provide the 911 call, radio run, injury photographs, and law enforcement disciplinary materials.

On April 10, 2026, the People filed their opposition. First, the People argue that the defense motion is procedurally barred as untimely and for failure to adequately confer. The People dispute the discoverability of the law enforcement disciplinary materials but concede that the 911 call, radio run, and injury photograph were discoverable. Regardless, they argue that they exercised due diligence. The People state that they began gathering discovery soon after the defendant's arraignment, produced materials promptly, and made various efforts to identify and obtain outstanding discoverable material. The People also argue that their post-COC efforts were diligent and that they acted expeditiously following defense counsel's requests.

On May 3, 2026, the defense filed a reply to the People's opposition.

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, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). 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 [*3]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]).

1. Defense Compliance with CPL § 245.50 (4)

The motion satisfies the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4). The COC challenge is timely (CPL 245.50 [4] [c]). The defense requested two extensions from the court, in each case before their deadline expired (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i]). Those extensions were granted, and the defense filed their motion before the deadline.^FN1 Further, the court perceives no deficiency in the defense conferral affirmation or in the conferral itself. The court will therefore consider the motion on the merits.

2. The People's Compliance with CPL § 245.20 (1)

Here, the defendant alleges that the People failed to satisfy their statutory obligations as to three categories of discoverable material: (1) the 911 call, radio run, and related documents; (2) one photograph of the complainant's injuries; and (3) law enforcement disciplinary records. The court will consider each in turn.

911 Call, Radio Run, and Related Documents

First, the 911 call, radio run, and related documents are discoverable, as the People concede. They argue, however, that the failure to produce these materials resulted not from any lack of diligence on their part, but from a backlog at the NYPD's Tapes and Records office, which handles such discovery requests. The People requested the materials from the NYPD on November 24, 2025, and did not receive them until February 17, 2026.

The People's argument is not entirely satisfying. For one thing, the People are required by statute to "endeavor" to ensure a "flow of information" between the NYPD and their office sufficient to comply with their discovery obligations (CPL 245.55), yet the People do not explain why the backlog exists or what efforts their office has made to address it. Further, while the People argue that repeatedly calling the Tapes and Records office would be fruitless, this court has difficulty believing that there is no way to request expedited production of these materials. Despite this, the People produced the materials shortly after filing their COC, and the defense has not articulated any prejudice.

Overall, the court finds this to be a minor negative factor in assessing the People's diligence.

Photograph of the Complainant's Injuries

Next, the People concede that the photograph of the complainant's injuries is discoverable, and they further concede that the failure to produce the photograph was the result of their own error. From the parties' conferral emails, it appears that the assigned prosecutor was at some point aware that a photograph was taken but neglected to follow up with the officer to [*4]obtain it. The lapse appears to have been unintentional, and the ADA acted promptly upon being notified of the failure to produce. It was easily remedied, and the defense has not articulated any prejudice resulting from the delay.

The court finds this error to be a minor negative factor in assessing the People's diligence.

Law Enforcement Disciplinary Records

The defense argues that the People violated their discovery obligations by failing to produce an IAB disclosure index for a testifying police witness and IAB logs for a non-testifying police witness. The defense has not established a discovery violation in either case.

First, regarding the disclosure index, the defense motion argues only that the People failed to produce a disclosure index "related to" an IAB log they received in full (defense affirmation, p. 7). As it relates to that log, the discovery index would only contain a summary with no non-duplicative information. As such, the disclosure index "itself has no impeachment value" and thus is not discoverable (People v Fuentes, — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872, at *5 [2025]; see also People v Wei Li, CR-029564-25NY, 2026 WL 1099188, at *6 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026] [analyzing Fuentes]). In their reply memorandum, the defense speculates that the disclosure index might list additional discoverable IAB logs. Because the defense raised this argument for the first time in reply, and thus the People do not have an opportunity to respond, the court will not consider it as it relates to the People's diligence. Nevertheless, the People admit that they have not obtained the disclosure index, so it is unclear how they concluded that they had in fact produced all discoverable IAB logs to the defense. The People are therefore ORDERED to obtain the disclosure index and provide a copy to the court and the defense within two weeks of the date of this decision.

Second, the IAB logs for a non-testifying police witness are not discoverable under any provision of CPL § 245.20 (1). The defense concedes that they do not fall within the scope of CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) (iv), which is explicitly limited to "testifying prosecution witness[es]." The defense argues that, because the officer played a significant role in the case, it is "highly conceivable" that the logs could negate the defendant's guilt or support a defense, citing CPL § 245.20 (1) (k) (i) and (iii) (defense reply, p. 3). However, the logs relate to allegations that the officer failed to take appropriate action in 2018 and 2021, and that he failed to answer a command phone in 2018. Contrary to the defense's assertion, this court finds it difficult to conceive of how these IAB logs could "negate the defendant's guilt as to," or "support a potential defense to," an alleged assault in November 2025 (CPL 245.20 [1] [k] [i], [iii]). The defense also appears to misapprehend the current catch-all provision of CPL § 245.20 (1), which is now contained in subparagraph (v). That subparagraph provides that the People must produce all material "relevant to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in the instant case or a defense thereto" (CPL 245.20 [1] [v] [emphasis added]). That language is narrower than the prior umbrella language, which required production of "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case" (CPL 245.20 [1], as eff Jan 1, 2020). The defense has presented no plausible reason to suspect that these IAB logs are relevant to the subject matter of the charges against the defendant in this case, or that they are relevant to any defense thereto (CPL 245.20 [1] [v]).

Because the defense has not established that these records are discoverable under CPL § 245.20 (1), the court concludes that their nondisclosure is not a discovery violation.

3. The Validity of the People's COC

Despite the two discovery violations, the People have demonstrated that their efforts to fulfill their discovery obligations were diligent (CPL 245.50 [5]; Bay, 41 NY3d at 211). The People made significant efforts to obtain and produce discovery. At the time they filed their COC, they had produced approximately 200 discoverable documents and files, with only a small number of items remaining outstanding. Only one minor discovery violation was primarily attributable to the People. The 911 call and related materials are, of course, an important piece of discovery. However, the People requested the materials early, and the fault for the delay resides with the NYPD. When the defense notified the People of potentially missing discovery, they took prompt steps to remedy their errors — and, in fact, to obtain and disclose materials outside the scope of automatic discovery. Overall, weighing the minor discovery violations in this case against the People's overall efforts, and considering all of the factors listed in CPL § 245.50 (5) (a), the court finds that the People exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and produce the discovery required under CPL § 245.20 (1).

The People's COC is therefore valid (CPL 245.50 [6]), and the motion is DENIED.

III. CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an A misdemeanor 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 19, 2025, to the filing of the People's COC and COR on February 3, 2026, 76 days are chargeable to the People. No additional time is chargeable. The People's February 3 COR was valid, and the defense has not established that the People are responsible for any post-readiness delay. The court finds that 76 days are charged to the People, and the defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: May 6, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.