People v Bernal

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

Decided on May 13, 2026

CR-703258-25CN

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

In two motions consolidated here for decision, the defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and to dismissing this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e); suppressing identification testimony related to a prior, out-of-court identification (US v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]); granting a "voluntariness hearing" for unnoticed statements the People intend to introduce at trial (People v Grillo, 176 AD2d 346, 347 [1st Dept 1991]); precluding unnoticed statement and identification testimony; directing the People to produce any evidence or information favorable to the defense (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]); and precluding the People from introducing evidence of prior bad acts at trial (People v Sandoval, 43 NY2d 371 [1974], People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]).

The People oppose.

I. Procedural History

The defendant is charged with VTL § 511 (2) (a) (iv) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license on December 4, 2025. The defendant was arrested that day and issued a desk appearance ticket. On December 18, 2025, the defendant appeared in court on the desk appearance ticket. The Legal Aid Society was assigned to represent the defendant, she was arraigned on a criminal complaint, and the case was adjourned to January 26, 2026, for conversion.

Due to a snowstorm, the case was administratively adjourned from January 26, 2026, to February 20, 2026.

On February 13, 2026, the People produced discovery to the defense, including body-worn camera (BWC) for four officers, NYPD paperwork, and DMV records. The People also filed and served a COC and COR.

On February 20, 2026, the case was on for conversion. The People had previously filed necessary conversion documents, and the court deemed the complaint an information. The court [*2]adjourned the case to March 30, 2026 for trial.

On February 27, 2026, the defense emailed the People a list of potentially outstanding discovery. The People did not respond.

On March 20, 2026, the defense filed their COC challenge and an omnibus motion. On April 21, 2026, the People filed their opposition to both motions. The defense has not filed a reply.

II. COC Challenge and CPL § 30.30 Motion to Dismiss

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because of their failure to produce an arraignment card, a pre-arraignment notification report, an interrupted patrol log, an arrest photograph, and law enforcement disciplinary records for PO Nubian McDonald, the sole testifying officer. The People oppose, arguing that the materials are not discoverable and that they exercised due diligence in obtaining and producing all discoverable materials in their custody or control to the defense. The People have established that they "exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries and efforts to obtain and provide" discoverable materials prior to filing their February 13, 2026 COC, and the COC is therefore valid (CPL 245.50 [6]).

First, "even if the arraignment card is technically discoverable, the People's failure to provide it to the defense has no bearing on their diligence" (People v Robinson, 87 Misc 3d 1211[A], *3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]). The document contains no non-duplicative information and is available to both parties in the court file (see id.).

Second, the pre-arraignment notification report is discoverable (CPL 245.20 [1] [e]), but the failure to disclose it has little if any bearing on the People's diligence (see People v Young, 86 Misc 3d 1201[A] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2025]). This report is an administrative NYPD document used to track a case from booking through arraignment, and any relevant information it contains is also provided in other NYPD documents. Nevertheless, the People are ORDERED to obtain the document and produce it to the defense within two weeks of the date of this decision.

Third, the interrupted patrol log has no bearing on the People's diligence, even if it is discoverable (Robinson, 87 Misc 3d 1211[A], *3). The interrupted patrol log is an administrative document not meant to track substantive case-related information but instead to track the amount of time spent in a stationhouse by on-duty officers (id.). Nevertheless, the People are ORDERED to obtain the document and produce it to the defense within two weeks of the date of this decision (see CPL 245.20 [7] [mandating "a presumption in favor of disclosure"]).

Fourth, the arrest photograph is not discoverable because it does not exist. Under NYPD Patrol Guide procedure 208-07 ("Photographable Offenses"), officers must photograph arrestees if charged with a felony, a penal law misdemeanor, or misdemeanors defined outside the penal law that constitute a felony if the arrestee has previously been convicted of a crime. None of those apply to the VTL misdemeanor charged here.

Fifth, the CCRB records are not in the People's actual or constructive possession, and their nondisclosure therefore does not affect the COC's validity (see People v Haggan, — NYS3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op 02462, at *1 [1st Dept 2026] [holding that materials "in the possession and control of third parties not under the prosecution's direction or control" are not "part of [the People's] initial discovery obligation"]).

Finally, as this court has held before, certain IAB log attachments are discoverable (see People v Zachary L., 86 Misc 3d 1209[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2025]). The People misread the Court of Appeals' decision in People v Fuentes, — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872 (2025). In Fuentes, the Court held that an IAB log did not have any "impeachment value," and thus was not discoverable, because the misconduct allegations contained therein were only a summary of a complaint from a civil rights lawsuit that had been produced (id. at 5). The People's argument in this case — that the IAB log is discoverable and the attachments are not — turns Fuentes on its head. Attachments that contain or substantiate the misconduct allegations summarized in a substantiated or unsubstantiated IAB log are still discoverable following Fuentes (see People v Minor, 88 Misc 3d 1227[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]).

However, in this case, the People had a reasonable basis for concluding that the materials were not discoverable, so the error has little if any bearing on their diligence. There is appellate support for the proposition that minor disciplinary matters are irrelevant to credibility and thus are not automatically discoverable (see, e.g., People v Burrows, 237 AD3d 1481, 1482 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied, 43 NY3d 1054 [2025]). The IAB logs produced for PO McDonald in this case mostly concern such minor matters: in one, PO McDonald's partner is alleged to have been rude to a complainant; in another, there was a $2 discrepancy between an invoice given to an arrestee and the corresponding bank deposit. The third, the only with any apparent impeachment value, concerns an allegation that PO McDonald ticketed a person's motorcycle "as a form of harassment." Still, even though the IAB allegations are mostly minor, the People should have obtained and reviewed the attachments prior to determining that they were not discoverable. Accordingly, the People are ORDERED to obtain and produce the following attachments within two weeks of the date of this order: for IAB log 2023-8230, the attachment titled "CC Audio with Complainant"; for IAB log 2023-14357, the attachment titled "invoice and bank receipt"; and for IAB log 2025-12781, the attachments titled "C/C Audio" and "CCRB Referral."

Considering "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]," the court finds that the People "exercised 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]). The People made significant efforts to obtain and produce discovery, requesting documents promptly and making appropriate efforts to locate missing documents. The case is not complex, and the discovery is not voluminous. However, the People reasonably believed that the withheld materials were not discoverable, and only one of the documents the court ordered disclosed is even arguably significant to the case. Overall, considering all the factors 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 provide discovery required under CPL § 245.20 (1).

The People's February 13, 2026 COC is therefore valid (see CPL 245.50 [6]), and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED.

III. CPL § 30.30 Motion to Dismiss

In this case, 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 December 18, 2025, to the filing of the People's COC and COR on February 13, 2026, 57 days are chargeable to the People. No additional time is chargeable. The People had filed a valid COC, and the People's February 13, 2026 COR was therefore valid. The defense has not established that the [*3]People are responsible for any post-readiness delay (People v Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 404 [2016]).

The defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

IV. Motions to Suppress and Preclude Evidence

First, the motion to suppress a noticed statement is GRANTED to the extent that a Huntley/Dunaway hearing is ordered. The parties' allegations create factual disputes that must be resolved at an evidentiary hearing (see CPL 710.60 [4]).

Second, the motion for preclusion and a voluntariness hearing regarding unnoticed statements is DENIED as the defense has not challenged any such statements (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; CPL 710.20). The People are directed to notify the defendant as soon as practicable upon deciding to use any unnoticed statement for impeachment or rebuttal purposes, and the defense is granted leave to renew their motion upon receiving such notification (see CPL 710.40 [2], [4]).

Next, the motion for a supplemental discovery order is GRANTED to the extent that the People are reminded of their obligations pursuant to Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), CPL § 245.20 (1) (k), and CPL § 245.60. The People filed a valid COC in this case, and the defense has not shown that further court intervention is necessary to ensure compliance (see CPL 245.35).

Finally, the motion to preclude evidence of prior bad acts is referred to the trial court. The People are directed to provide supplemental discovery to the defense as soon as practicable and at least fifteen days prior to the first scheduled trial date (CPL 245.20 [3]; CPL 245.10 [1] [b]).

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: May 13, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.