People v. Altug

Decision Date09 February 2021
Docket NumberCR-009552-20NY
Citation70 Misc.3d 1218 (A),139 N.Y.S.3d 791 (Table)
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Matt ALTUG, Defendant.
CourtNew York Criminal Court

Bernadette Rabuy (New York County Defender Services), for the defendant.

CYRUS VANCE, JR. ( John Dunn, of counsel), for the People.

Jay L. Weiner, J.

Considered: Notice of Omnibus Motion and supporting papers; People's Affirmation and Memorandum of Law in Response to the Defendant's Omnibus Motion and supporting papers.

The defendant moves for an order deeming the People's certificate of compliance invalid under Criminal Procedure Law sections 245.20 and 245.50, and the People's certificate of readiness invalid under CPL 245.50(3) ; suppressing evidence of identification testimony and the defendant's statements; and permitting him to reserve the right to make further motions.

Procedural Background

The defendant was arrested on or about May 8, 2020, and was charged, by misdemeanor complaint, with forcible touching ( Penal Law § 130.52 ), and sexual abuse in the third degree ( Penal Law § 130.55 ). He was arraigned on May 9, 2020.

On July 17, 2020, the People disclosed certain information and documents to the defense. Also on that date the People filed and served a certificate of compliance ( see CPL 245.50[1] ), which stated that the People had disclosed and made available "all known material and information that is subject to discovery," except for material and information subject to a protective order.

On October 7, 2020, the defendant served his own certificate of compliance ( see CPL 245.20[4], 245.50 [2[), and, on October 8, 2020, the People filed a certificate of readiness under CPL 30.30(5) and (5-a).

By notice of motion dated October 21, 2020, the defendant moved for the relief summarized above. With respect to the branches of his motion regarding the People's certificates of compliance and readiness, the defendant contends that the People have not complied with their discovery obligations under CPL 245.20 and 245.50 and that their certificates of compliance and readiness were, accordingly, invalid. The defendant contends that the People failed to disclose the following information: 1) personnel/disciplinary records of Police Officer Clark, whom the defendant characterized as an "intended witness" (Affirmation of Bernadette Rabuy, at 4); 2) the name of and adequate contact information for the complainant's manager, who, the defendant said, "has information about the offense charged" ( id. ); and 3) information about the complainant which, the defendant alleged, was improperly redacted ( id. ). Specifically, the defendant alleged, the prosecution had improperly redacted: the complainant's date of birth, home address, and email on the ADA Datasheet; the complainant's date of birth, age, home address, and email address on the NYPD Complaint Report; the complainant's date of birth, age, home address, and email address on the NYPD "aided card"; all information about the complainant except his name on a police officer's Activity Log; and the complainant's date of birth, age, and address on the ADA Packet (Defense motion at 4).

The Law

The relevant substantive provisions, contained in Criminal Procedure Law 245.20, provide:

"1. Initial discovery for the defendant. The prosecution shall disclose to the defendant, and permit the defendant to discover all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control, including but not limited to:
(c) The names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto, including a designation by the prosecutor as to which of those persons may be called as witnesses.
(k) All evidence and information, including that which is known to police or other law enforcement agencies acting on the government's behalf in the case, that tends to: (iv) impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness."

Further, CPL 245.20(2) provides:

"The prosecutor shall make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain the existence of material or information discoverable under subdivision one of this section and to cause such material or information to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the prosecutor's possession, custody or control; provided that the prosecutor shall not be required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum material or information which the defendant may thereby obtain. For purposes of subdivision one of this section, all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution."

CPL 245.20(7) contains a "[p]resumption of openness": "There shall be a presumption in favor of disclosure when interpreting sections 245.10 and 245.25, and subdivision one of section 245.20, of this article."

Once the People have complied with the requirements of CPL 245.20(1), they are permitted to serve a certificate of compliance, which "shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery" ( CPL 245.50[1] ). The People "shall not be deemed ready for trial" under CPL 30.30 until they have filed "a proper certificate" under CPL 245.50(1) ( CPL 245.50[3] ).

The defendant's contentions about the adequacy of disclosure about the complainant and about his supervisor are without merit. The People provided the defendant with adequate contact information with respect to the complainant in their July disclosures. Further, there is no reason to question the People's assertion that they learned that the complainant's supervisor had relevant information only later; and the People disclosed information about the supervisor in their subsequent disclosure.

Next, the defendant, in contending that the People's certificate of compliance is invalid (Affirmation at 3), asserts that "the prosecution has failed to provide any of Officer Clark's personnel or disciplinary records," and he demands that the People disclose "the full personnel/disciplinary records previously but no longer confidential pursuant to Civil Rights Law Section 50-A." The defendant contends that the People's Certificate of Compliance "is invalid because the prosecution has neither made any such disclosure nor asserted that the sought material as been searched for in good faith but does not exist." (Affirmation at 10). In opposition, the People assert that CPL 245.20 does not require them to "disclose underlying police disciplinary records or conduct a disciplinary inquiry into the general conduct of an officer" (Affirmation at 2). They contend instead that they are required to make disclosures that relate to the "subject matter of the case." ( id. ). Essentially, the People argue that impeachment material discoverable under CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv) is limited to impeachment material directly pertaining to the case, rather than material that would impeach the general credibility of the witness.

The defendant overstates the People's disclosure obligations with respect to impeachment material. Nothing in CPL 245.20(1) requires disclosure of a police officer's full personnel or disciplinary records ( see People v Randolph , 69 Misc 3d 770, 772 [Sup Ct Suffolk County 2020] ; People v Gonzalez , 68 Misc 3d 1213[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50924[U] *2 [Sup Ct Kings County 2020]; People v Davis , 70 Misc 3d 467, 473-474 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2020] ; People v Suprenant , 69 Misc 3d 685, 693 [City Ct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • 15 Octubre 2021
    ...Misc. 3d 1214(A), 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50743(U), 2021 WL 3356381 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021) ; See also : People v. Altug , 70 Misc. 3d 1218(A), 139 N.Y.S.3d 791 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2021) This is consistent with the well established principle that "law enforcement witnesses should be treated in......
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • 15 Octubre 2021
    ... ... "impeachment evidence and information is not limited to ... that which is related to the subject matter of the underlying ... case." People v. Williams , 72 Misc.3d 1214 (A), ... 2021 NY Slip Op. 50743(U) (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2021); See ... also : People v. Altug , 70 Misc.3d 1218 (A), 139 ... N.Y.S.3d 791 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2021) This is consistent with ... the well established principle that "law enforcement ... witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other ... witness for purposes of cross-examination." People ... ...
  • People v. Soto
    • United States
    • New York Criminal Court
    • 30 Julio 2021
    ...is overbroad. The statute does not require disclosure of the officer's entire personnel file (see People v. Altug, 70 Misc.3d 1218(A), 139 N.Y.S.3d 791 [Crim. Ct. N.Y. County 2021] ; People v. Randolph, 69 Misc.3d 770, 772, 132 N.Y.S.3d 726 [Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 2020] ). The People's dis......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT