People v Farias

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County

Decided on February 26, 2026

Docket No. CR-026334-25BX

David L. Goodwin, J.

The motion to strike the People's certificate of compliance and dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied, as the People have met their burden of showing due diligence in connection with their statutory discovery obligations—namely, that they made reasonable inquiries to obtain and disclose all discoverable material. People v. Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 211, 213 (2023); see C.P.L. § 245.50(5)(a).

At the outset, the People explain the timeline of their outreach and of their disclosures to the defense and—in both their responses to the defense's outreach and in their motion response—addressed each category of allegedly omitted or overlooked discovery. In particular, the People persuasively argue that the defendant's medical records were not in their custody or control, and could have been subpoenaed by the defense. See C.P.L. § 245.20(2).

The People also point out that they decided against obtaining a search warrant to analyze the blood taken in connection with that medical treatment. While the defense argues that this is, in effect, an admission that the evidence will be exculpatory, the defense does not cite any authority for the proposition that the People must be compelled to obtain a warrant for and chemically analyze the defendant's blood when doing so may produce exculpatory results. See C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(j) ("The prosecution shall not be required to provide information related to the results of physical or mental examinations, or scientific tests or experiments or comparisons, unless and until such examinations, tests, experiments, or comparisons have been completed."); cf. People v. Steinberg, 170 AD2d 50, 76 (1st Dept. 1991) (observing, in the Rosario context, that the People need not create discoverable material for the defense), aff'd, 79 NY2d 673 (1992).

The record otherwise indicates that the People appropriately responded to the defense's inquiries, either to indicate that material was already shared or to fix certain omissions that the defense identified. Under the revised Article 245, an omission that is corrected has diminished impact. Cf. People v. Whitney, 88 Misc 3d 905, 913 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct., Bronx Co. 2025) (David, J.).

Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, the relevant statutory factors (including those not mentioned above, such as the relatively copious discovery proffer) favor the People, supporting a finding of due diligence, good faith, and reasonable inquiries. Thus, the certificate [*2]of compliance is valid and, as there is no argument that over 90 days elapsed otherwise, the request for dismissal is denied.

The defense asks, in the alternative, for discovery sanctions, or to compel disclosure of outstanding material. As it is best unclear what discovery is still outstanding, and as sanctions are better addressed by the trial judge, that alternative branch of the defense motion is denied without prejudice to renewal at a future date.

Dated: February 26, 2026

Bronx, NY

David L. Goodwin

Judge of the Criminal Court