People v. Beaupre, 2021-32604

CourtNew York City Court
Writing for the CourtERIC M. GALARNEAU City Court Judge.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. ANDRE BEAUPRE, Defendant.
Docket NumberIndex 1004-21,2021-32604
Decision Date28 October 2021

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Unpublished Opinion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 355 [Cohoes City Court 2020]). Therefore, the Court is compelled to conclude that (1) the information is in the People's possession as that is defined under CPL §245.20[l][j] and that (2) they have not provided it to the defense. As such, the People's readiness for trial is invalid unless there is a statutory exception.

The People point to various "good faith" savings clauses, which purports to permit the filing of a Cof C and SoR even in the absence of full compliance with discovery. In fact, both CPL §245.50 and 30.30 contain such language. (CPL §245.50[1] ad [3]; CPL §30.30[5]). However, the issue turns on whether the People's non-compliance was in good faith.

2

Among the cases cited by the People is People v. Bruni (71 Misc.3d 913 [Alb. Co. Ct. 2021]). In that case, the Court concluded that the People's Cof C was valid despite their failure to disclose police personnel records that had been lost due to a data breach. Critical to the Bruni's determination was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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