People v Minor

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

Decided on June 2, 2026

CR-019107-25NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

The defense moves pursuant to CPLR § 2221 (d)^FN1 to reargue their challenge to the People's September 4, 2025 certificate of compliance (COC), which this court denied on March 3, 2026. The defense argues that, in its prior decision, the court overlooked the People's belated disclosure of body-worn camera (BWC) footage, which the defense characterizes as a "material change in circumstances" permitting a COC challenge outside the statutory 35-day limit (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [ii]). The People oppose.

The motion to reargue is denied. A motion to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [d]). The purpose of a motion to reargue is not "to provide . . . an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application," and "[i]t may not be employed as a device for the unsuccessful party to assume a different position inconsistent with that taken on the original motion" (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567—68 [1st Dept 1979]). The defense motion does not comport with these principles.

In challenging the COC, the defense did not meaningfully address the motion's timeliness. Although the defense asserted that an extension rendered the motion timely (defense affirmation, Nov 26, 2025, at 4), the cited exhibit expressly stated that the extension expired on November 3, 2025 — more than three weeks before the motion was filed (see id., exhibit 9 at 4, [*2]lines 18-22). Nothing in the motion addressed this discrepancy or contended that the belated discovery constituted a material change in circumstances under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) (ii) (see id. generally). After the People objected to the COC challenge as untimely, the defense argued in their reply that the court had discretion to ignore the November 3, 2025 deadline and should do so in the interest of justice (defense reply, Jan 30, 2026, at 1-2). Again, the defense did not claim that belatedly disclosed discovery constituted a material change in circumstances (see id.).

The court ruled on the defense motion accordingly. In response to the argument that the court had discretion to ignore the deadline, the court examined the statutory scheme in detail and ultimately determined that the deadline was mandatory except where a statutory exception applies (People v Minor, 88 Misc 3d 1227[A], *2-3 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). The court then discussed the scope of the "material change in circumstances" exception, which was the only exception that could have applied (id. at *4). First, the court examined the text and history of the statute and concluded that, to invoke the exception, the defense "cannot merely show that the People belatedly produced discoverable material" but must "demonstrate that the belated production . . . constituted a material change in circumstances" (id.). The court then found that the defense had "not shown that the People's belated production of discoverable material constituted a material change in circumstances" (id.). Contrary to the defense's suggestion, the court did not hold that a belated disclosure would never constitute a material change in circumstances, only that the defense had not made such a showing (see id.).^FN2

Though the defense never argued that the belated disclosure of BWC constituted a material change in circumstances, they now contend that the court should have reached that conclusion sua sponte, based on the factual record alone. The record before the court would not have supported such a finding. The defense motion specifically stated that they received the BWC footage on November 3, 2026, not after that date as they now claim (defense affirmation, Nov 26, 2025, at 6). Further, the defense argued that "[i]t should have been obvious to the prosecution" from a "cursory review" "that BWC footage of the car search was missing" (id. at 7). Defense counsel was aware that the missing BWC footage likely existed before the deadline passed, as they specifically inquired about the missing footage on October 24, 2025 (People's affirmation, Jan 19, 2026, exhibit A at 5). Finally, despite having received the BWC footage before filing the motion, the defense did not rely on any facts from that footage (see id. generally). Overall, the record showed that (1) the defense knew well before the deadline that outstanding BWC footage likely existed; (2) the defense received the footage before the deadline expired, and (3) the footage played no role in the motion. On these facts, the court properly determined that the belated production of the BWC footage did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

In fact, the defense's primary argument rests on a factual allegation "not offered on the [*3]prior motion," which is not permitted in a motion to reargue (CPLR 2221 [d] [2]).^FN3 The defense now alleges that they could not actually view the BWC footage until November 5, 2025, after the COC challenge deadline passed (defense affirmation, March 24, 2026, at 4), but this claim was not included in their prior motion (see defense affirmation, Nov 26, 2025, at 6-7). The record before the court when it decided the COC challenge established that the People produced the BWC footage on November 3, 2025, and the court reasonably inferred that the defense had access to the footage that day. If that inference was incorrect, the fault lies with the defense for failing to clarify the record. The court cannot have "overlooked or misapprehended" a "matter[] of fact" that was not before it (CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). In any event, the defense did not need absolute certainty that a discovery violation occurred before filing a COC challenge, and the current claim that they were unsure whether the outstanding BWC footage existed is in considerable tension with their prior argument that the absence was "obvious" (defense affirmation, Nov 26, 2025, at 7).

Because the defense has failed to identify "matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion" and relies on "matters of fact not offered on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [d]), the motion to reargue is DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: June 2, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.