People v S.A.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on May 8, 2026

Docket No. CR-[]-25BX

Deidra R. Moore, J.

On August 26, 2025, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), was arrested and charged with Penal Law ("P.L.") § 130.52[1], forcible touching, and related charges. The Defendant was arraigned in Bronx County Criminal Court the same day.

The Defendant moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") §§ 245.50[4][c], 30.30[1][b] and 170.30[1][e], contending that the statutory speedy trial period has expired because the People did not fulfill their discovery duties under C.P.L. §§ 245.20[1] and 245.50[3].

In the alternative, the Defendant moves for a hearing to suppress evidence of out-of-court identification procedures (US v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]).

Upon review and consideration of the submissions, court file and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the certificate of compliance, filed November 12, 2025, is VALID, as the assigned prosecutor exercised due diligence in complying with her discovery obligations under C.P.L. Article 245. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED, as only forty-five (45) days are chargeable to the People.

The People are directed to disclose additional material within thirty (30) days.

The Defendant's motion for a Wade hearing is GRANTED.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2025, the Defendant was arraigned on a top charge of violating P.L. § 130.52[1], forcible touching, a class A misdemeanor. The case was adjourned to September 30, 2025, for conversion and discovery compliance.

At the first adjournment following arraignment, the misdemeanor complaint was [*2]converted to an information, and the case was adjourned to November 19, 2025, for discovery compliance.

On October 10, 2025, the People filed and served a motion for a protective order regarding certain discovery, pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.70[1].

On November 12, 2025, Hon. Judge Craig Ortner granted the People's motion for a protective order. The same day, the People filed and served a certificate of compliance ("COC"), statement of readiness ("SOR"), and Automatic Disclosure Form ("ADF").

On November 19, 2025, current defense counsel was assigned to represent the Defendant, and the instant motion schedule was set.

By motion dated December 17, 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 6, 2026; the defense reply followed on January 22, 2026.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

The prosecution must be ready for trial within ninety days of the commencement of the criminal action where, as here, the top count charged is a class A misdemeanor (C.P.L. § 30.30[1][b]; P.L. § 130.52[1]).

The speedy trial clock is statutorily linked 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 as part of the People's initial discovery obligations (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]).

Challenges to a COC's validity must be raised by motion within thirty-five days of the COC's filing, after the movant has conferred in good faith with the opposing party (C.P.L. § 245.[4][c]). 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 holistically evaluate these factors, with no one factor being determinative (C.P.L. § 245.50[5][b]).

DISCUSSION

I. The Parties' Arguments

The Defendant asserts that the COC is invalid based on impeachment material that was belatedly disclosed or has yet to be shared. After the COC was filed, the defense received documents related to the complainant's mother's application for a U-Visa, based on the instant criminal matter; additional impeachment material for three testifying officers; and the activity log for one officer. The defense also notes that Central Personnel Index sheets for testifying officers have not been disclosed, and that log attachments for two IAB complaint logs remain outstanding.

The prosecution does not dispute that the documents related to the complainant's mother's U-Visa application are discoverable as potentially exculpatory material under C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k], but notes that this material was timely served on the prior defense attorney, who was the Defendant's attorney of record when the COC was filed (People's Opposition, Exhibit 3). Moreover, the documents were immediately shared with current defense counsel once requested.

The assigned prosecutor acknowledges that she did not realize one activity log had not been disclosed; upon learning of the lapse, she contacted the relevant officer, obtained the log, and shared it with the defense within one day. The People concede that six IAB complaint logs were inadvertently not attached to disclosed officer summary sheets, and that the lawsuit disclosure document for one officer was cut off partway through the page. Following notification of the incomplete lawsuit document and missing IAB logs, the assigned prosecutor disclosed this material the same afternoon. Finally, the People note that following the COC's filing, they received updated documentation from the Civilian Complaint Review Board regarding a substantiated allegation against a testifying officer; this documentation has since been shared with defense counsel.

II. The Certificate of Compliance is Valid

Under the C.P.L. 245.50[5][a] factors, the People have carried their burden to demonstrate that they acted with due diligence prior to the COC's filing.

First, the U-Visa documents were not belatedly disclosed, as this material was served on prior defense counsel prior to the COC's filing. Moreover, the Court rejects the Defendant's argument that Central Personnel Index sheets for officers are discoverable, as these documents include exonerated complaints as well as those that have been substantiated and unsubstantiated. C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv] does not require the prosecution to disclose the entirety of a testifying officer's personnel records (People v Johnson, NYS 3d 859, 863 [4th Dept 2023]; People v Fuentes, 2025 Slip Op 05872). The assigned prosecutor has disclosed the complaint logs for both substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints, and the CPIs are beyond the scope of discovery required by C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv].

As to the People's efforts to comply with their discovery obligations, the assigned prosecutor began to gather discovery promptly on September 10, 2025, working with precinct discovery liaisons as well as the assigned detective. The People properly sought a protective order ruling prior to the COC's filing, and disclosed discovery immediately upon receiving this ruling.

The belatedly disclosed material—six IAB complaint logs, one officer's activity log, and one document containing lawsuit information for a testifying officer—is small in volume [*3]compared with the overall discovery shared. Material disclosed prior to the COC's filing includes body worn camera files with audit trails; video files containing forensic interviews with the complainant; twenty-one video files containing surveillance footage from the MTA; activity logs for six officers; detectives' DD5s, including companion cases and attachments; and the standard packet of NYPD paperwork.

The People straightforwardly acknowledge their mistake in failing to attach the six complaint logs to the officers' summary sheets, and in sending the lawsuit document which had been cut off partway through the page, and these discovery lapses were promptly remedied. Finally, the defense has asserted no prejudice or impediment to its ability to investigate the case or prepare for trial.

III. Review and Disclosure of IAB Log Attachments

The defense asserts that IAB log attachments for two IAB complaint logs remain outstanding, and that this material is automatically discoverable. C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv] mandates automatic disclosure of all material in the People's actual or constructive possession that "relate[s] to the subject matter of the case" and "tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness."

The Court of Appeals has recently affirmed that "the People's automatic discovery obligation extends to certain material that tends to impeach a prosecution witness's credibility[,]" including "misconduct allegations against law enforcement officers, when relevant to a witness's credibility" (People v Fuentes, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872). At the same time, the Court of Appeals found that "C.P.L. § 245.20[1][k][iv] does not require production of a document just because it provides additional information not in other material"; the crucial inquiry regarding a disputed document is whether the document itself "tends to impeach" (id.).

It is unclear whether the IAB log attachments requested by the defense are discoverable under Fuentes. The attachments have not been provided for review; nor have the contents of the attachments been described. Consequently, this Court cannot determine whether the attachments "tend to impeach" the credibility of the testifying officer or whether they merely contain additional, non-impeaching details of the incidents outlined in disclosed complaint logs. As the possibility remains that the attachments contain material that "tends to impeach" a testifying prosecution witness, the prosecution must disclose the log attachments to the defense within thirty (30) days. If, upon review of the attachments, the People believe that sensitive portions require redaction, they may move for a protective order under C.P.L. § 245.70[1] within this time.

THE CPL § 30.30 CALCULATION

The speedy trial clock commenced with filing of the criminal complaint on August 26, 2025; the first day counted for speedy trial purposes is the next day ((People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]). Pursuant to C.P.L. § 245.70[8], the C.P.L. § 30.30 clock was tolled when the People filed the protective order motion (August 27, 2025 — October 10, 2025 = 45 days). The C.P.L. § 245.70[1] motion was decided on November 12, 2025, the same date the People filed a valid certificate of compliance. Thus, no additional chargeable time was accrued.

Forty-five (45) 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, as only forty-five (45) days are chargeable to the People.

The People are ordered to disclose the requested IAB log attachments within thirty (30) days.

Defendant's request for a Wade hearing is GRANTED.

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

Dated: May 8, 2026

Bronx, New York

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