People v. Beaupre

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: Index 1004-21,2021-32604
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. ANDRE BEAUPRE, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
v.
ANDRE BEAUPRE, Defendant.

No. 2021-32604

Index No. 1004-21

City Court of Cohoes

October 28, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

P. DAVID SOARES, Albany County District Attorney, (Bryanne Perlanski-Brucato Esq., of Counsel) Attorney for the People

STEPHEN W. HERRICK Albany County Public Defender (Rebecca K. Harp, Esq, of Counsel) Attorney for the Defendant

DECISION AND ORDER

ERIC M. GALARNEAU City Court Judge.

On June 15, 2021, the above-named defendant was charged with Petit Larceny (Penal Law (PL) §155.25). The defendant, through his attorney, now moves for omnibus relief, including a motion to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance. The People have opposed the motion. The following constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INVALIDATE THE PEOPLE'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND STATEMENT OF READINESS

On August 23, 2021, the People filed their statement of readiness (SoR) and Certificate of Compliance (Cof C). On August 26, 2021, the Court conducted an inquiry pursuant CPL §30.30(5), deeming the People ready for trial. For her part, the defendant objected, but the Court

1

permitted formal objections to be made in writing (CPL §245.50[4]). The defendant now seeks to invalidate the Cof C and SoR. The People filed a supplemental CoC on September 28, 2021.

CPL §245.50 requires that the People file a Cof C as a precursor to speedy trial readiness (CPL §245.50[3]; CPL §30.30[5]). The Cof C must affirm that, "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery", the prosecutor has complied with their discovery obligations under CPL §245.20. (CPL §245.50[1]). Failing to do so can have two distinct consequences. First, it may nullify the People's statement of speedy trial readiness under CPL §30.30. Second, it can result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPL §245.80. Each will be considered in turn.

In this case, there is no dispute that the People have failed to provide certain calibration records, nor that these items would qualify as material related to '"scientific tests or experiments'" as would require disclosure under CPL §245.20[l][j]. Further, the People have not raised any issue as to the information being beyond their possession or control or that of any "public servant engaged in law enforcement activity" (CPL §245.20[l][j]; see People v. Preston, 70 Misc.3d...