People v Carrillo

Supreme Court, Kings County

Decided on May 7, 2026

Ind. No. 74174-2025

Heidi C. Cesare, J.

Defendant moves to invalidate the prosecution's certificate of compliance (CoC) on the ground that the prosecution provided incomplete automatic discovery before filing the CoC and declaring ready for trial. In support of the motion, he alleges that the prosecution untimely disclosed an addendum that contained civilian witness designations and their contact information; failed to confirm whether police collected the names and contact information of alleged eyewitnesses; and failed to provide the complainant's medical records. For the reasons explained below, the motion is denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant is charged by indictment with assaulting someone at approximately 8:40 p.m. on August 2, 2025, inside a supermarket at 3334 Fulton Street in Brooklyn. He allegedly punched and slashed the complainant in the back, causing multiple lacerations to the back, "including one laceration stretching from the nape of the neck across the upper back and down the left arm" (Acevedo aff in opp to mot at ¶ 3).

Police Officers Alex Rivera and Jagvir Hoonjan were first on the scene and met the complainant and two eyewitnesses at the southwest corner of Crescent and Fulton Streets. The complainant was "bleeding from multiple lacerations to his back" (id. at ¶ 4). He was treated at the scene by Emergency Medical Services personnel and taken to Jamaica Hospital, where he received additional medical treatment. Three days later, the complainant observed defendant in the vicinity of Crescent and Fulton Streets, called 911, and pointed out defendant to police, who arrested him.

On February 6, 2026, the prosecutor filed a CoC and statement of readiness for trial (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 4). On February 19, 2026, defense counsel emailed the prosecutor who was handling the case at that time to confer about discovery. The email contained a list of allegedly outstanding discovery items and asked the prosecutor to "advise on their status" (Robinson aff in [*2]supp of mot, exh A). The list of allegedly outstanding items included: "Addendum with civilian witness designation and contact info."; "The complainant's medical records from Jam[a]ica Hospital"; and "Did the officers get names and contact info for the two witnesses depicted on Officer Hoonjan's and Officer Rivera's BWC's? These witnesses state on the BWC that the complainant grabbed a female and that the complainant did not get stabbed." (id., Robinson email dated February 19, 2026).

On March 4, 2026, the prosecutor answered the email. He stated that he thought that the witness addendum had been included "in the folder with the discovery from 2/2. It's attached here" (id., Parrish email dated March 4, 2026). The addendum identifies the complainant as the lone civilian witness and provides a Verizon Bridge ID number as contact information (Robinson aff in supp of mot, exh B). The prosecutor also reported that the prosecution did not have the complainant's hospital records and that he was "working on getting them" and would provide them "if we receive them" (Robinson aff in supp of mot, exh A, Parrish email dated March 4, 2026). He further reported, "I do not believe that the officers got any information for the two people on the scene when the police responded to the incident. I remember both individuals saying something in the body camera footage that indicated they did not want to be involved any further. Likewise I do not believe the officers got the information for any witnesses inside the deli" (id.).

On March 12, 2026, defendant filed the present motion to challenge the CoC (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 7). In the motion, defendant argues that the CoC is invalid for three reasons: (1) the prosecution failed to disclose, before the CoC was filed, an addendum that identified the civilian witnesses and provided contact information for them; (2) the prosecutor did not confirm whether police did not collect the names and contact information of alleged eyewitnesses to what occurred inside 3334 Fulton Street, including the "two witnesses" depicted on police body-worn camera recordings who, according to the defense, "unequivocally stated that the complaining witness was not stabbed during the incident," and that "'everyone in the deli saw' what occurred and that the complaining witness was lying about what happened" (memorandum of law for defendant at 8); and (3) the prosecution failed to disclose the complainant's hospital records.

On April 14, 2026, the prosecution filed an affirmation and memorandum of law opposing the motion (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 8). In those papers, the prosecutor currently assigned to the case contended that the CoC was filed in good faith and after the exercise of due diligence to provide all discoverable material. The prosecutor contended that the belated disclosure of the witness addendum did not invalidate the CoC, because the prior prosecutor had mistakenly believed that this item had been disclosed before the CoC was filed, and disclosed the addendum after "defense counsel flagged this missing item . . . during the discovery conferral process" (memorandum of law for prosecution at 12 of 25). The prosecutor contended further that the nondisclosure of the complainant's hospital records "does not invalidate the People's COC because the medical records are not in the People's possession, custody, or control . . . . and the defense may obtain medical records via subpoena duces tecum" (id. at 10 of 25).

In addition, the prosecutor represented that the prosecution had no "additional contact information for witnesses that may have witnessed the incident inside 3334 Fulton Street" (id. at 13 of 25). The prosecutor acknowledged that the police did not collect the names and contact information of the "two young males" who approached and spoke to police at the scene (id.). The prosecutor explained that the two police officers thanked them and told them to "go home guys, go home" and "did not get contact information for these two male individuals" (id.).

On April 21, 2026, defendant filed a reply (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 9). In reply, defendant disputed that the defense had "equal ability to obtain" the hospital records, contending that the prosecution can obtain them "far more efficiently by securing a signed HIPAA authorization, whereas the defense must rely on a so-ordered subpoena—a significantly more time-consuming process" (reply memorandum of law for defendant at 3). Defendant also disputed that the prosecution could declare ready for trial in good faith before obtaining the medical records, contending "it is highly unusual for the Kings County District Attorney's Office to do so in an assault case where the existence of such records has been known from the outset" (id. 4).

In deciding this motion, this court viewed portions of the body-worn camera (BWC) recordings of Officers Rivera and Hoonjan. The recordings depict the two young males alleged by defendant to be exculpatory witnesses.^FN1 As depicted on the recordings, they appear to this court to be minors. One wore a white t-shirt, and the other wore a black Pablo Escobar t-shirt that featured three images of Mr. Escobar, the moniker "El Patrón," United States currency, and a leopard.

Early in the BWC recording of Officer Hoonjan, the two youths are walking in the company of the complainant toward the corner of Crescent and Fulton Streets to meet the officers. One of the youths, it appears to be the youth in the white shirt, says to Officer Rivera, "I have a pedophile. He touched some girl in the deli." Later, after the same youth had accused the complainant of lying about what had occurred inside the supermarket, the complainant can be heard on the BWC recording of Officer Hoonjan calling them "fucking liars." As the youths were about to walk away from the corner, the youth in the Pablo Escobar t-shirt appears to point or gesture at the complainant and say, "Suck my dick!" at which point the two officers repeatedly tell the youths to "go home."

II. Discussion

Under CPL article 245, the prosecution must provide initial automatic discovery to the defense before declaring ready for trial (see CPL 245.50 [1], [3]; 245.20 [1]; CPL 30.30 [5] [a]). The initial automatic discovery obligation applies to "the discovery required by subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article" (CPL 245.50 [1]). Upon completing this initial automatic discovery obligation, aside from two exceptions not relevant here, the prosecution must serve and file a certificate of compliance (see id.).

Contrary to defendant's argument, the prosecution was not required to obtain the Jamaica Hospital records of the complainant before filing the CoC. The initial discovery obligation under subdivision (1) of CPL 245.20 applies to discoverable material and information "in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control" (CPL 245.20 [1]). In addition, "[f]or purposes of subdivision one of [CPL 245.20], all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution" (CPL 245.20 [2]).

The initial discovery obligation, however, does not apply to discoverable material not within the possession and control of the prosecution or a specified law enforcement agency. The [*3]discovery of such material is governed by subdivision (2) of CPL 245.20, which requires the prosecution to "make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under subdivision one of this section 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 prosecution's discovery obligation under subdivision (2) is limited to the extent that "[t]he prosecutor shall not be required to obtain material or information if it may be obtained with use of a subpoena duces tecum" (id.).

Three of the four Departments of the Appellate Division have concluded that the prosecution's initial automatic discovery obligation under subdivision (1) of CPL 245.20 does not apply to discoverable material "in the possession and control of third parties not under the prosecution's direction or control" (People v Haggan, —AD3d—, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 02462, *1 [1st Dept 2026]; see People v Branton, 238 AD3d 1429, 1431 [3d Dept 2025]; People v Radford, 237 AD3d 1511, 1512 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1048 [2025]). The prosecution must still act in good faith and exercise due diligence to obtain and disclose such material under subdivision (2) of CPL 245.20, but any dereliction of that duty has no bearing on whether the prosecution complied with the initial discovery obligation under subdivision (1) of CPL 245.20 and filed a valid CoC (see People v Haggan, 2026 NY Slip Op 02462, *1; People v Branton, 238 AD3d at 1431; People v Radford, 237 AD3d at 1512). Thus, in People v Haggan (2026 NY Slip Op 02462, *1), the First Department ruled that the validity of a CoC did not depend on whether the prosecution had disclosed medical records in the possession of an unspecified third party "not under the prosecution's direction or control."

In this case, the prosecutor's initial automatic discovery obligation under subdivision (1) of CPL 245.20 does not apply to the complainant's medical records at Jamaica Hospital. Defendant does not dispute that the prosecution did not possess those records when the CoC was filed. Those records were in the possession of Jamaica Hospital, a third party "not under the prosecution's direction or control" (People v Haggan, 2026 NY Slip Op 02462, *1). The prosecution was, therefore, not required to exercise due diligence to obtain those records before filing the CoC. Accordingly, the nondisclosure of those records does not provide a basis to invalidate the CoC.

At this stage of the proceedings, this court need not address defendant's claim that the prosecutor has not acted diligently to obtain the hospital records pursuant to subdivision (2) of CPL 245.20 (see reply memorandum of law for defendant at 3). Defendant should await the result of the prosecutor's effort to obtain and disclose those records before raising a claim that the prosecutor has violated the discovery obligation in subdivision (2). In the meantime, defendant may subpoena the records for himself should he wish to review them sooner (see People v Miller, 86 Misc 3d 1210[A], *3-*4 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2025]).

Next, defendant is not entitled to invalidation of the CoC on the ground that the prosecutor did not confirm that police did not obtain the names of the two youths or any other witnesses to the assault. The discovery statute imposes no such duty on the prosecutor, and defendant does not explain why the prosecutor would need to confirm or double-check what is evident from the BWC recordings of Officers Rivera and Hoonjan: that neither officer obtained the names and contact information of the two youths or anyone inside the supermarket when police entered to investigate approximately twenty minutes after the alleged assault. If defendant has some reason to believe otherwise, he should have said so during the discovery conferral and [*4]in this motion.^FN2

Moreover, contrary to defendant's suggestion, the police were not required to attempt to collect the names and contact information of any witnesses. The discovery statute does not direct police to collect such information (see CPL 245.20 [2] ["This subdivision shall not require the prosecutor to ascertain the existence of witnesses not known to the police or another law enforcement agency"]; People v Burrows, 237 AD3d 1481, 1482-1483 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1054 [2025]). In this regard, the discovery statute mirrors the constitutional rule that the police have no affirmative obligation to obtain "evidence for the benefit of a criminal defendant" (People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 51 [2011]). Thus, defendant cannot challenge the CoC on the ground that the police did not obtain or attempt to obtain the names and contact information of witnesses to the alleged assault.

Lastly, defendant has established one violation of the initial automatic discovery obligation. The prosecutor violated CPL 245.20 (1) (c) by not disclosing the witness addendum before the CoC was filed. Following the belated disclosure of that item, the prosecutor was required to file a supplemental CoC (see CPL 145.50 [1-a]) and must do so expeditiously upon receipt of this decision.

Upon consideration of the due diligence factors in subdivision (5) (a) of CPL 245.50, this court finds that this one discovery lapse does not render the CoC invalid. Although this case is not complex, a factor that disfavors the prosecution, the other statutory factors favor a finding of good faith and due diligence (see People v McMahon, 237 AD3d 746, 751 [2d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1057 [2025]). The prosecutor provided voluminous discovery, as reflected in the inventory of discovery that accompanied the CoC (see Inventory of Discovery, NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 at 2-3). This court credits the prosecutor's explanation that the belated disclosure of the addendum stemmed from a mistaken belief that the addendum had been disclosed before the CoC was filed. The prosecutor promptly corrected this mistake after learning from defense counsel that the addendum was missing. This record establishes that this omission "was inadvertent and without bad faith or a lack of due diligence" (People v Ryan, 247 AD3d 934, 936 [2d Dept 2026] [cleaned up]). In addition, defendant does not claim that "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]). Based on the totality of circumstances, this court finds that the prosecution acted in good faith and exercised due diligence to comply with initial automatic discovery. Consequently, the defense motion to challenge the CoC is denied, and this court finds the CoC to be valid.

So ordered.

Dated: May 7, 2026

Brooklyn, NY

HEIDI C. CESARE, A.J.S.C.