Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on April 17, 2026

Docket No. CR-009772-25BX

Deidra R. Moore, J.

[*1]

On April 4, 2025, Steven Valeriano (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), was arrested and charged with Penal Law ("P.L.") § 120.05[2], assault in the second degree, and related charges. The Defendant was arraigned in Bronx County Criminal Court the following day.

The Defendant moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") §§ 30.30 and 170.30[1][e], contending that the statutory speedy trial period has expired because the People did not timely discharge their discovery duties pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.20[1] and 245.50[3].

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the certificate of compliance, filed October 31, 2025, is VALID, as the assigned prosecutor exercised due diligence in complying with his discovery obligations under C.P.L. Article 245. The Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50[4][c], 30.30, and 170.30[1][e] is DENIED, as only sixty-two (62) days are chargeable to the People.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2025, the Defendant was arrested and charged with a top count of violating P.L. § 120.05[2], assault in the second degree, a class D felony; the Defendant was also charged with multiple misdemeanors and violations. The Defendant was arraigned on April 5, 2025, and released under supervision.

By the next adjournment date, May 14, 2025, the case had not been presented to a grand jury, and the matter was adjourned to May 28, 2025.

On May 28, 2025, the People moved to dismiss the sole felony count, P.L. § 120.05[2]. The felony complaint was thus replaced with a misdemeanor complaint, and the matter was adjourned to July 17, 2025, for the filing of a misdemeanor information and discovery compliance.

The prosecution served initial discovery on the defense on June 27, 2025; on July 2, 2025, a superseding information was filed and served. The top count charged in the superseding information was P.L. § 120.00[2], assault in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor.

On July 8, 2025, the People filed and served a motion for a protective order pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.70[1].

At the next court appearance on July 17, 2025, the Defendant was arraigned on the information. As to the People's pending application for a protective order, the case was adjourned for additional filings, in camera review of the subject records, and hearing. On October 10, 2025, Hon. Judge Ralph Wolf granted the People's C.P.L. § 245.70[1] motion, ordering disclosure of the records with specified redactions and prohibitions on dissemination. The case was adjourned to November 12, 2025, for discovery compliance.

On October 31, 2025, the People filed and served, off calendar, a certificate of compliance ("COC") and statement of readiness ("SOR").

At the following court appearance on November 12, 2025, the People answered ready for trial, and the case was adjourned for defense counsel to confer with the prosecution regarding any potential discovery issues.

Later that day, defense counsel sent the assigned prosecutor a list of discovery items purported to be missing. In response, the assigned prosecutor shared an Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") log for a testifying officer on November 14, 2025; evidence audit trails for body-worn camera ("BWC") footage on November 17, 2025; and information regarding a civil suit between the complainant and the Defendant on November 21, 2025. The People filed supplemental certificates of compliance addressing these disclosures on November 17, 2025, and November 21, 2025. On December 1, 2025, the assigned prosecutor shared an additional IAB log, and filed a supplemental certificate of compliance the following day.

By motion filed December 5, 2025, the Defendant moved to invalidate the certificate of compliance and dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50[4][c], 30.30[1][b], and 170.30[1][e]. The People filed their opposition on January 27, 2026; the defense reply followed on February 17, 2026.

While the instant motion was pending, the People shared one additional document on December 9, 2025, and filed a supplemental certificate of compliance the same day.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

The prosecution must be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action where the defendant is charged with one or more offenses, at least one of which is a felony (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][a]), or within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action where the defendant is charged with one more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by more than three months' imprisonment, and none of which is a felony (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]). Where a defendant is charged by felony complaint, and that felony complaint is subsequently replaced by an accusatory instrument charging only misdemeanors, the People must be ready for trial within the lesser of the following two periods: ninety days from the date of the filing of the misdemeanor complaint or information, or six months from the filing of the felony complaint (C.P.L. § 30.30[7][c]).

The speedy trial clock is statutorily bound to the prosecution's discovery obligations under C.P.L. Article 245 (C.P.L. §§ 245.50[3] and 30.30[5]). Before the People may be deemed ready for trial, thus tolling the speedy trial clock, they must serve on the defense a vast array of case-related material in their possession from over twenty enumerated categories (C.P.L. § 245.20[1]). Discoverable material possessed by law enforcement agencies is deemed to be in the People's possession and must be furnished to the defense (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]). When the People have fulfilled their discovery obligations, they must file with the court and serve on the defense a certificate of compliance; this certificate shall affirm that the prosecution exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and disclose discoverable material (C.P.L. § 245.50[1]).

Effective August 7, 2025, a challenge to the validity of a certificate of compliance must be raised by motion within thirty-five days of the COC's filing, unless a good cause extension is requested and granted within this time (C.P.L. § 245.[4][c]). Such a motion must include an affirmation from the movant declaring that the movant timely conferred in good faith with the opposing party regarding the particular issues forming the basis for the motion, and that no resolution could be reached (id.).

A COC's validity depends on whether the People exercised due diligence to comply with their discovery obligations prior to the COC's filing, and it is the People's burden to demonstrate that they acted with such diligence (People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]). Courts assessing due diligence must consider a range of factors, including "the efforts made by the prosecutor to comply with the requirements of Article 245; 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]). An analysis of the People's diligence must consider all factors contained in C.P.L. § 245.50[5][a], with no one factor being determinative (C.P.L. § 245.50[5][b]).

DISCUSSION

I. The Parties' Arguments

a. The Defendant's Objections to the COC

The material underlying the Defendant's objections to the COC falls into two general categories: impeachment material, and miscellaneous police reports, which are largely administrative in nature.

The defense first argues that the People did not timely disclose all material in their possession which may tend to impeach testifying officers, as required by C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv]. Specifically, the defense argues the prosecution did not disclose Central Personnel Indexes for testifying officers; Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB") investigative recommendations; index sheets from Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") complaints; two logs from IAB complaints against a testifying officer; attachments for two IAB logs; and NYPD Department Advocate's Office reports for four IAB complaints.

The Defendant also contends that the prosecution did not timely disclose the arrest report worksheet, sometimes referred to as the scratch arrest report; the pre-arraignment notification report; the NYPD Online Prisoner Arraignment Database report, referred to as the ZOLPA; and the ECMS Access Log. The defense contends that these items are discoverable under C.P.L. § 245.20[1][e], which requires disclosure of "[a]ll statements related to the subject matter of the case, written or recorded or summarized in any writing or recording, made by persons who have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including all police reports, notes of police and other investigators, [and] law enforcement agency reports."

Finally, the defense contends that the People failed to disclose complete audit trails from body-worn camera files and automatic vehicle location data from responding officers' vehicles, asserting these must also be disclosed pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.20[1][e].

b. The Prosecution's Response

The prosecution counters that the vast majority of requested material falls outside the scope of automatic disclosure required by C.P.L. § 245.20[1] or does not exist. The prosecution acknowledges that two IAB logs for testifying officers were inadvertently omitted from the discovery package served prior to the COC's filing, but notes that these omissions were promptly cured, and that he made diligent efforts to comply with his discovery obligations both before the COC's filing and in response to defense counsel's post-COC requests.

Defense counsel first raised objections to the COC via e-mail on November 12, 2025, outlining nearly fifty items alleged to be missing. In response, the assigned prosecutor disclosed an additional IAB log on November 14, 2025, and another on December 1, 2025. The assigned prosecutor conferred with defense counsel multiple times in the week following the initial [*2]discovery objections, stating that the remaining material was either not discoverable, or did not exist. The People's position in these communications previewed the arguments in their opposition filing.

First, the People state that no NYPD Department Advocate's Office ("DAO") reports exist for the IAB complaints requested by defense counsel. DAO reports are only generated in two situations: complaints where the investigation results in no charges or specifications, and complaints where a "Command Discipline C" is ordered against the subject officer (People's Opposition at 25). As none of the disclosed IAB complaints meet these criteria, DAO reports would not have been generated.^FN1 The prosecution also states that the scratch arrest report does not exist.

The People contend that the automatic vehicle location data, audit trails, IAB log attachments, Central Personnel Index sheets, index sheets for IAB logs, CCRB investigative recommendations, ZOLPA, and pre-arraignment notification card are not automatically discoverable.^FN2

As to the CCRB investigative recommendations, the prosecution states that they have disclosed CCRB materials for testifying officers which are in their actual possession and which involve substantiated or unsubstantiated complaints, which is all that is required of them. As the CCRB is an independent, non-law enforcement entity, the prosecution is not required to obtain additional CCRB records by subpoena when defense counsel may obtain the same records with use of a subpoena (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]). Additionally, defense counsel requests all records of CCRB complaints, regardless of the investigative finding—and only that material which may tend to impeach is discoverable under C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv].

Regarding the Central Personnel Indexes, the IAB log attachments and the IAB log index sheets, the People argue that C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv] does not require disclosure of these items. C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv] requires the prosecution to disclose "[a]ll evidence and information that relate to the subject matter of the case, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf that tends to [] impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness." The CPIs are personnel records which list all complaints against an officer, including complaints in which the officer was exonerated. Because the People are only required to disclose material which supports a good faith basis to impeach, the People must provide only those materials relating to substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints, not an officer's entire personnel record. Moreover, the People argue that index sheets for IAB [*3]complaints are not discoverable under C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv], as they contain no impeachment information. The IAB log index sheets merely list actions taken in the course of an IAB investigation, and do not record any factual allegations or investigative findings. Finally, the People argue that the IAB log attachments for two complaints—one substantiated, and one unsubstantiated—are not automatically discoverable, as the logs themselves relay the necessary impeachment information, including the allegations and the results of the investigation.

Finally, regarding the device and user audit trails for BWC footage, as well as the automatic vehicle location ("AVL") data, the prosecution contends that these items are not discoverable under C.P.L § 245.20[1][e]. The prosecution explains that NYPD's BWC footage has three types of audit trails for camera files, and that two of these—device and user audit trails—contain no information about the case. The evidence audit trails, which the assigned prosecutor already disclosed, contains general information about a recording, including the recording start and upload time and any notes or tags added by users. The device and user audit trails, by contrast, "consist solely of automatically generated data based on device and user events" (People's Opposition at 8). Device and user audit trails relay information such as when the camera was turned on or docked to charge, and when a video was uploaded or shared with other users. The prosecution here contends that these trails are not discoverable, as they do not contain information related to the subject matter of the case. Similarly, the People contend, the automatic vehicle location data for responding officers' vehicle is not related to the subject matter of the case.

II. The People's Diligence Under C.P.L. § 245.50[5]

a. Materials Relevant to the Court's Diligence Assessment

The plain language of C.P.L. § 245.20[2] makes clear that the People are not required to obtain and disclose CCRB records which are not in their actual possession. Records possessed by the Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent agency tasked with investigating complaints against NYPD officers, are not deemed to be in the People's constructive possession (see C.P.L. § 245.20[2] ["For purposes of subdivision one of this section, 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."]). Although C.P.L. § 245.20[2] requires the People to make "a diligent, good faith effort" to ascertain the existence of and make available otherwise discoverable material outside their possession, this duty is expressly circumscribed by the caveat that the People are not required to subpoena records "where the defense is able to obtain the same material with the use of a subpoena duces tecum." The Court credits the assigned prosecutor's assertion that CCRB material in the People's actual possession has been disclosed.

As to the Central Personnel Index sheets for testifying officers, this Court has previously found these documents to fall outside the scope of discovery required by C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv]. The prosecution is not required to disclose the entirety of an officer's personnel file. Rather, the People must disclose that material which "tends to impeach"; several courts considering the issue have determined impeachment materials to include documents related to pending, substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints against a testifying officer, but to exclude [*4]exonerated or unfounded complaints (see People v Soto, 193 NYS3d 677 [Crim Ct, New York County 2023] ["In the context of CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv), courts have typically ruled that allegations. . . deemed substantiated or unsubstantiated, or cases that are pending, must be disclosed, whereas, exonerated and unfounded allegations may not be."]; see also People v Barralaga, 153 NYS3d 808 [Crim Ct, New York County 2021]; People v Montgomery, 159 NYS3d 655 [Sup Ct, New York County 2022], People v Castellanos, 148 NYS3d 652 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2021]). Because Central Personnel Index sheets include all complaints against a subject officer, including those resulting in exoneration, the prosecution is not required to produce these documents.

As with the CPIs, the index sheets for the IAB logs fall outside the scope of discovery required by C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k]iv], as these documents do not contain material which "tends to impeach." The index sheets document internal steps taken during the investigation of an IAB complaint, not substantive information about the allegations themselves or the investigation's findings. Index sheets list the date an investigation was opened, with whom investigators spoke and when, and when the investigation was closed. The index sheets do not document the substance of conversations with witnesses, recount allegations against the subject officer, or disclose investigative recommendations. Indeed, defense counsel's primary argument that the sheets are discoverable is that these sheets may allow the defense to look for signs of additional outstanding documents. Particularly following the Court of Appeals' decision in People v Fuentes, disclosure is not required on this basis (2025 NY Slip Op 05872 ["Nothing in C.P.L. 245.20[1][k][iv]. . . requires the People to disclose every single document referencing impeachment material subject to disclosure based solely on that reference.").

By contrast, the Court is inclined to order disclosure of the log attachments requested by defense counsel, notwithstanding that the complaints allege seemingly minor discrepancies in evidence voucher documents. Without knowledge of the precise information contained in the attachments, the possibility exists that these attachments include material that tends to impeach. Particularly because the subject officer of the IAB complaints is the complainant in this matter, the Court orders disclosure of these attachments, in accordance with C.P.L. Article 245's presumption of openness.

Finally, the Court disagrees with the defense that automatic vehicle location ("AVL") data for the officers' vehicles is automatically discoverable. The defense puts forward no reasonable argument that the AVL data relates to the subject matter of the instant case; nor does the defense articulate any potential defense use of the data. Any potentially relevant information from this data, such as officers' time of arrival or duration at a scene, would also be contained in disclosed body-worn camera files. While a novel case could arise where the AVL data somehow contains information that relates to a case's subject matter and is thus discoverable, this is not that case.^FN3

b. Assessment of C.P.L. § 245.50[5] Factors

Pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.10[1][a], the prosecution is required to serve initial discovery on the defense within thirty-five days of arraignment when the defendant is at liberty, or sixty-five days of arraignment when the discoverable materials are exceptionally voluminous or have not yet been obtained despite the People's diligent, good faith efforts. Here, the assigned prosecutor served initial discovery on June 27, 2025, thirty days after the matter was reduced to a misdemeanor, but eighty-four days after arraignment.

As to the complexity of the case, the matter originated as a felony prosecution but was subsequently reduced. Although the alleged crime involved a single time and place of occurrence and a single complainant, the People sought out and disclosed medical records from a third party. While the instant case does not seem to involve particularly voluminous materials, the volume of belatedly disclosed documents, consisting of two IAB log reports, is extremely minimal by comparison.

In response to the alleged discovery omissions, the assigned prosecutor conferred diligently with defense counsel, even as counsel continues to assert that dozens of items that either do not exist or are not discoverable are missing. Moreover, the assigned prosecutor correctly sought to address the protective order issue well in advance of the COC's filing and promptly remedied the error of the missing IAB logs. The defense offers no details about the information contained in these belatedly disclosed logs that would support invalidation based on their late disclosure, as no prejudice is asserted or supported.

Because the People have demonstrated due diligence in discharging their discovery obligations, the certificate of compliance, dated October 31, 2025, is VALID.

Additionally, the IAB log attachments requested by defense counsel must be disclosed within thirty (30) days.

THE CPL § 30.30 CALCULATION

The felony complaint was filed on April 5, 2025. After the felony complaint was replaced by the misdemeanor complaint on May 28, 2025, the People were required to be ready for trial within ninety days of the misdemeanor complaint's filing (C.P.L. § 30.30[7][c]). The speedy trial clock was first tolled on July 8, 2025, when the prosecution filed its motion for a protective order (C.P.L. §§ 245.70[8] and 30.30[4][a]) (May 29, 2025 — July 8, 2025=41 days). The speedy trial clock began to run again following the court's ruling on the protective order on October 10, 2025, and was next tolled at the filing of the certificate of compliance and statement of readiness (October 11 — October 31, 2025=21 days).

Sixty-two (62) days are chargeable to the People.

CONCLUSION

The Defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to C.P.L. §§ 245.50[4][c] and 30.30[1][b], is DENIED.

The People are ordered to disclose the two IAB log attachments associated with complaints against the subject officer/complainant within thirty (30) days.

This constitutes the opinion, decision, and the order of the Court.

Dated: April 17, 2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Deidra R. Moore, J.C.C.