People v Artega

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

Decided on May 28, 2026

CR-037392-25NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.

The defense first moves this court to find the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) invalid and to dismiss this case pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e). The People oppose, arguing that the motion is procedurally barred under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c) and that they exercised due diligence, regardless of any lapses.

I. Relevant Facts

On December 7, 2025, the defendant was arrested and charged with violating VTL § 1192 (2-a) (a) for allegedly driving while intoxicated. He was arraigned on a misdemeanor information, and The Legal Aid Society was assigned to represent him. The defendant was released on his own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to January 16, 2026, for trial.

On January 16, 2026, the defendant appeared in court with his current attorney, who submitted a notice of appearance. The People were not ready for trial, and the court adjourned the case to March 12, 2026, for trial.

On January 21, 2026, the People filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) and served the documents on defense counsel.

On March 11, 2026, defense counsel called the People and stated that he had not received any discovery.

On March 12, 2026, the People were ready for trial. The defense was not. Defense counsel stated that he had not received any discovery until the night before and needed time to review the discovery. The court adjourned the case to April 27, 2026, for trial.

On April 20, 2026, the defense filed the instant motion challenging the People's COC.

On April 27, 2026, the court set a motion schedule.

On April 29, 2026, the People filed an opposition. The People argue that the motion must be denied because it is untimely and does not contain an affirmation of conferral and because the People exercised due diligence prior to filing their COC.

The defense's reply was due on May 22, 2026. Defense counsel has neither filed a reply [*2]nor contacted the court to request an extension. Accordingly, the court decides this motion solely on the submitted papers.

II. The COC Challenge

On a motion challenging a COC, this court will typically first determine whether the movant has complied with the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (see People v Minor, 2026 NY Slip Op. 50255[U] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Next, if the motion satisfies those requirements, the court will examine the alleged discovery violations individually (People v Lodgson-McCray, 88 Misc 3d 1212[A] [Crim Ct, NY County 2026]). Finally, if the court finds that any discovery violations occurred, the court will then examine the violations in the context of "the totality of the [People's] efforts to comply with the provisions of [Article 245]" and determine whether the People nevertheless "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]).

Here, the defense has not satisfied the procedural requirements of CPL § 245.50 (4) (c). Under CPL § 245.50 (4) (c), a COC challenge must be filed "within thirty-five days of the service of the certificate" and must include an affirmation that the defense "timely conferred in good faith or timely made good faith efforts to confer with the opposing party regarding the specific and particularized matters forming the basis for such challenge." The COC challenge before the court does not satisfy either of these requirements. The motion was filed on April 20, 2026, which is 89 days after the People's COC was filed and served on January 21, 2026. The defense does not claim that service was improper or deny receiving the COC. The defense did not request a good cause extension and has not shown a material change in circumstances (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [i], [ii]). The motion also does not include an affirmation that defense counsel "timely conferred" with the prosecution (CPL 245.50 [4] [c] [emphasis added]). After receiving the People's COC, defense counsel waited 49 days to inform them that he had not received discovery. This was not a timely conferral and therefore does not satisfy the statute.

The COC challenge is therefore DENIED, and the People's January 21, 2026 COC is deemed valid.

III. CPL § 30.30

In this case, in which the defendant is charged with an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of up to 364 days and no felonies, 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 7, 2025, to the People's filing of the COC and COR on January 21, 2026, 45 days are chargeable to the People. No additional time is chargeable. The People's January 21 COR was valid, and no delay has been attributable to them since that date. The defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Dated: May 28, 2026

New York, NY

Ilona B. Coleman, J.C.C.