People v Terry

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

Decided on June 2, 2026

CR-003992-26NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

In an omnibus motion, the defense moves for an order declaring the People's certificate of compliance (COC) invalid (CPL 245.50 [4]-[6]); suppressing evidence (Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, 645 [1961]; People v Huntley, 59 NY2d 868 [1983]; Dunaway v New York, 442 US 200 [1979]; 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 supplemental discovery procedures (CPL 245.35); 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 PL § 130.52 for allegedly forcibly touching the complainant, a coworker, on September 5, 2025. After originally reporting the incident to their employer, the complainant reported the incident to the police on December 9, 2025.

On February 4, 2026, the defendant surrendered to the NYPD for arrest and processing. The next day, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint and released under supervision.

The People began their efforts to gather discovery. On February 11, 2026, the People spoke with the arresting officer to request all discoverable materials in the NYPD's possession, and they separately requested 911 call and radio run audio recordings and related paperwork. On February 17, 2026, the People interviewed the complainant and obtained discoverable materials from her, including photographs and text messages. On February 18, 2026, the People again spoke with the arresting officer to request certain NYPD paperwork in his possession.

Having received most of the discovery by early March 2026, the People made efforts to identify and obtain outstanding discovery. On March 10, 2026, the assigned ADA requested assistance from the Litigation Support Unit (LSU) of the District Attorney's Office in obtaining certain outstanding documents. On March 11, 2026, the People requested the ECMS case file [*2]from the arresting officer. On March 12, 2026, the People requested materials from the Survivor's Services Bureau (SSB) of the District Attorney's Office.

Also on March 12, 2026, the People produced partial discovery to the defense. The production included NYPD arrest paperwork, law enforcement disciplinary records, materials from the investigation conducted by the defendant's former employer, photographs, and notes from witness interviews.

Over the next week, the People obtained discoverable materials. On March 17, 2026, the People contacted the LSU requesting an update on their request for outstanding discovery and also requested outstanding body-worn camera (BWC) footage from the arresting officer. On March 19, 2026, LSU provided some of the requested outstanding materials and confirmed that others do not exist.

On March 20, 2026, the People produced additional discovery. The materials included the ECMS file, BWC footage for two officers, updated law enforcement disciplinary records, SSB records, and activity logs. The People then filed and served a COC, along with a certificate of readiness (COR), automatic disclosure form (ADF), and discovery list. The COC stated that the People had not produced a 911 or radio run because the recordings were not in their actual possession despite their exercise of due diligence.

On April 1, 2026, the People produced additional SSB records that did not previously exist, and they filed and served a supplemental COC (SCOC).

On April 3, 2026, defense counsel sent the People an email listing potentially outstanding discoverable material, and the parties conferred in detail over the next three weeks. The parties disagreed over the discoverability of several items, and they were unable to resolve these disagreements through their conferral.

On April 24, 2026, the defense filed this motion.

On May 18, 2026, the People filed their opposition.

On May 29, the defense filed their reply to the People's opposition.

II. COC Challenge

The defense argues that the People's COC was invalid because they failed to produce witness names and contact information; 911 call and radio run recordings and related paperwork; IAB log attachments; two BWC checklists; and SSB records. The People oppose. They argue that they were authorized to withhold the witness information under CPL § 245.20 (1) (c); that the 911 call, radio run, and related paperwork were not in their possession despite the exercise of diligence; that the IAB log attachments are not discoverable; that the BWC checklists do not exist; and that they did in fact produce the SSB records. Further, the People argue that they exercised due diligence in obtaining and producing all discoverable materials in their custody or control, regardless of any errors.

First, the People credibly assert that the allegedly outstanding BWC checklists do not exist. Typically, only one BWC checklist is created for a case, and the defense has not provided any reason to believe that additional checklists were created in this case.

Second, the People produced the SSB records prior to filing their COC. The records are in the list of discovery the People filed with their COC, and the fact that they paid the complainant a $25 witness fee is listed in their March 20, 2026 ADF. The defense does not address this or explain their basis for believing that the records had not been produced. They did not raise the issue during the conferral process with the People.

Third, the 911 call, radio run, and related paperwork are discoverable. The materials [*3]were constructively within the People's possession when they filed their COC (see CPL 245.20 [2]), and they are discoverable under CPL § 245.20 (1) (e) and (g). Contrary to the People's argument, the fact that NYPD and FDNY jointly administer New York City's 911 system does not mean it is a separate, non-law enforcement entity. This discovery violation is a minor negative factor in assessing the People's diligence. The People received the materials from NYPD almost immediately after requesting expedited production, and they do not explain why they could not have done so earlier. Nevertheless, the People requested the materials promptly, and the primary fault for the delay lies with NYPD.

Fourth, as this court has previously explained, certain IAB log attachments are discoverable, and the Court of Appeals' decision in People v Fuentes, — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872 (2025), is not to the contrary (People v. Bernal, No. CR-703258-25CN, 2026 WL 1356991, at *2 [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Following Fuentes, courts — and therefore the People — must examine the "impeachment value" of individual disciplinary records to determine their discoverability (Fuentes, — NY3d at *5). Documents that "disclose[] the source and full content of [misconduct] allegations" are discoverable; documents that merely summarize those allegations are not, at least when the source documents have been produced (see id.). However, 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]), and the IAB logs produced in this case concern such minor matters. Still, 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 to the defense within two weeks of the date of this order:

• For IAB log 2024-20716, the attachments titled "Audio";

• For IAB log 2023-16818, the CCRB attachments;

• For IAB log 2022-19004, the attachment titled "Email" and the CCRB attachments;

• For IAB log 2019-42968, the CCRB attachment; and

• For IAB log 2018-34932, the attachment titled "OCD/CCRB#201806919."

Finally, it is not obvious whether the People properly withheld witness information under CPL § 245.20 (1) (c). That subsection authorizes the People to withhold "[i]nformation . . . relating to the identity of . . . the victim or witness of an offense defined under article one hundred thirty" (CPL 245.20 [1] [c]). The defense, citing People v Z.W. (Crim Ct, NY County, June 6, 2023, Morales, J., docket CR-010791-22NY), argues that the plain meaning of the phrase "witness of an offense" refers to people who observed the offense. The People, citing several trial court decisions,^FN1 argue instead that "witness" is a "legislative term of art" that "refers to [any] person who may give testimony in court" (People's opposition, 27). However, this court need not resolve the dispute, because the outcome is the same either way. Even if the People improperly withheld the witness information in this case, they did so based on a reasonable and [*4]good-faith interpretation of the statute, and this court would not weigh the error heavily against them. On the other hand, even if the People properly withheld the information, the court now orders disclosure (see CPL 245.30 [3]). The defendant worked with the witnesses and likely has sufficient information to determine their identities, so anonymity is not a significant concern. Also, the complainant's identity is known to the defense, and the People have not attempted to shield it. Their argument that the identities of the secondary witnesses may reveal the identity of the complainant is, on these facts, entirely inapt. While the defense has not demonstrated a specific need for the witness information, the general argument that it is necessary to prepare a defense, coupled with the statute's presumption of disclosure (CPL 245.20 [7]), outweighs the need to protect witness information in this case. The court therefore ORDERS the People to disclose witness names and adequate contact information within two weeks of the date of this order (CPL 245.20 [1] [c]; CPL 245.30 [3]).

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 material. The case is not complex, and the discovery is not especially voluminous. However, the People reasonably believed that the withheld materials were not discoverable, and the undisclosed material is of limited significance relative to the materials produced. 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 produce discovery required under CPL § 245.20 (1).

The People's March 20, 2026 COC is therefore valid (see CPL 245.50 [6]), and the motion challenging the COC is DENIED.

III. Motions to Suppress and Preclude Evidence

First, the motion to suppress a noticed statement is GRANTED to the extent that a Huntley/Dunaway/Wade is ordered. The parties' allegations create factual disputes that must be resolved at an evidentiary hearing (see CPL 710.60 [4]). A Mapp hearing is denied as the defense has not identified any tangible evidence recovered from the defendant or an area under his custody and control, and the People have stated that they do not intend to introduce any such evidence. The Dunaway hearing is granted as to any post-seizure observations or other intangible evidence. The People have not denied that they intend to introduce such evidence at trial.

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 DENIED. The People filed a valid COC in this case, and the defense has not shown that 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. [*5]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: June 2, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.