People v. Castellanos

Decision Date30 April 2021
Docket Number00430-2019
Citation72 Misc.3d 371,148 N.Y.S.3d 652
CourtNew York Supreme Court
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Daniel CASTELLANOS, and Paul Castellanos, Jr., Defendants. The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Daren Swift, Defendant.

For the People: Danielle M. Olivero, Assistant District Attorney, Joshua Brister, Assistant District Attorney, Bronx County District Attorney's Office, 198 East 161st Street, Bronx, NY 10451

For Defendant Daniel Castellanos: Oded Oren, Esq., Nayantara Bhushan, Esq., The Bronx Defenders, 360 East 161st Street, Bronx, NY 10451

For Defendant Paul Castellanos: David Hymen, Esq., Esmeralda Daci, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, Criminal Defense Practice 260 E. 161st Street, Bronx, NY 10451

For Defendant Daren Swift: Naomi Oberman-Breindel, Esq., The Bronx Defenders, 360 East 161st Street, Bronx, NY 10451

For the New York City Police Department: Christopher D. Williams, Esq., New York City Police Department Legal Bureau, 1 Police Plaza, NY, NY 10038

Margaret L. Clancy, J.

Introduction

In these cases, defendants challenged the People's Certificates of Compliance (COC) based on, as relevant here, the disclosure of only a list of substantiated misconduct complaints for testifying police officers. Although this court earlier ruled that the People had to provide underlying documents for both substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) refused to provide records for the unsubstantiated complaints without a subpoena. The People prepared the subpoenas, the court signed them, and the NYPD now moves to quash them. After review of the relevant case law, multiple submissions by the parties and defense counsel as amici , as well as extensive oral arguments, the court denies the motions to quash and orders the NYPD to comply with the lawfully issued subpoenas.

Background

Defendant Daren Swift is charged under Ind. No. 02373-2019 with Assault in the First Degree and other crimes. In an unrelated case, Daniel Castellanos and Paul Castellanos are charged under Ind. No. 00430-2019 with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree and other crimes. To comply with their new obligations under the 2020 discovery reforms, the People filed an Automatic Discovery Form (ADF) and a Certificate of Compliance (COC) in each case on January 17, 2020. Defendants then challenged the validity of the COCs on multiple grounds. As relevant to these motions to quash, in both cases defendants argued that, pursuant to CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv), it was insufficient for the People to provide only a list of substantiated misconduct complaints for testifying police officers. In Swift, defendant argued he was also entitled to unsubstantiated complaints and underlying documents for both.1 In Castellanos, defendants argued they were entitled to all underlying documents for all misconduct complaints, including those complaints that were determined to be unsubstantiated, unfounded, exonerated or truncated. In each case, this court ruled that the People had to provide both substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints from both the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The court further ruled that a list was not sufficient and that the People had to provide underlying documents.2

To comply with the court's rulings, the People provided defendants with underlying documents for substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints that were either in their possession or obtained from the CCRB. However, they were unable to provide documents for the unsubstantiated complaints from the NYPD, as the NYPD would not provide any records to the People without a subpoena. The People prepared subpoenas for the case files for unsubstantiated complaints for the testifying officers in each case and the court signed them. The NYPD then filed these motions to quash the subpoenas.

Legal Discussion

The defendants’ challenges to the People's COCs raised two keys issues regarding CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv) as it relates to police officers’ disciplinary records. First, whether the statute requires disclosure of all misconduct complaints, regardless of the finding. Second, whether a mere list or summary of misconduct complaints is sufficient. The NYPD takes no position on the first issue, arguing only that, regardless of the finding, automatic discovery under this section requires the People to provide only a list.3 According to the NYPD, underlying records for misconduct complaints are only "discretionary" discovery and, as such, if defendants want to obtain those records they must follow the procedure detailed in CPL § 245.30(3).4

1) Unsubstantiated Misconduct Complaints Must be Disclosed.

While the NYPD's motions raise no issue as to whether unsubstantiated findings must be provided under CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv), this issue was litigated at some length prior to the issuance of the subpoenas. The People initially opposed providing even a list of unsubstantiated misconduct complaints; defendants argued for disclosure of all complaints, regardless of the findings. The court adheres to its prior oral rulings that to satisfy their discovery obligations, the People must disclose records regarding both substantiated and unsubstantiated misconduct complaints. According to the CCRB, an unsubstantiated finding is one where "the available evidence is insufficient to determine whether the officer did or did not commit the misconduct." (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/investigations/case-outcomes.page, last accessed April 30, 2021). The NYPD acknowledged using the same definitions in its investigations. Unlike truncated, exonerated, and unfounded complaints, the underlying facts of substantiated and unsubstantiated findings may provide a good faith basis for cross examination. (See People v. Randolph, 69 Misc. 3d 770, 132 N.Y.S.3d 726 [Sup. Ct., Suffolk County 2020] ; see also, People v. Akhlaq , 71 Misc.3d 823, 144 N.Y.S.3d 835 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 2021] ; People v Smith , Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 24, 2021, Johnson, J., Indictment No. 01866-2019; People v. Cooper , 71 Misc.3d 559, 143 N.Y.S.3d 805 [County Ct., Erie County 2021].5 )

2) Underlying Records for both Substantiated and Unsubstantiated Misconduct Complaints Must be Provided

In relevant part, CPL § 245.20(1)(k)(iv) requires the prosecution to provide "[a]ll evidence and information ... that tends to impeach ... the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness ...." In arguing that this subsection requires only a list, the NYPD relies on several cases that held the People's automatic discovery obligations were satisfied by providing a summary of misconduct complaints without any underlying documents. ( People v. Davis , 70 Misc. 3d 467, 134 N.Y.S.3d 620 ; accord People v. Knight , 69 Misc. 3d 546, 550, 130 N.Y.S.3d 919 ; People v. Gonzalez , 68 Misc. 3d 1213(A), 2020 WL 4873901 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 2020] ; People v. Suprenant , 69 Misc. 3d 685, 693, 130 N.Y.S.3d 633 [Glen Falls City Court 2020] ). This court respectfully disagrees with its colleagues.

Because misconduct complaints may, in fact, be impeachment material (at least those complaints that have been substantiated or unsubstantiated), a summary that gives only a general description of that misconduct is not sufficient. Summaries, certainly the ones at issue here, lack any significant substance or detail about the nature or extent of the misconduct. Defendants are entitled to more. Defendants are entitled to detailed information so they can understand the specific nature and degree of the misconduct, determine its relevance to a particular defense, and prepare arguments as to its use on cross-examination at hearing and trial.

The court holds that when the statute explicitly states "all" information and evidence that tends to impeach credibility, the statute means just that: all underlying records for substantiated and unsubstantiated misconduct complaints must be provided by the People. (See People v. Smith , Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 24, 2021, Johnson, J., Indictment No. 01866-2019 [underlying documents must be provided], Green , supra [same], Randolph , supra [same], Cooper, supra [same], and People v Porter , NYLJ 12/4/2020, page 21 [Crim Ct, Bronx County, November 4, 2020][disclosure letter not sufficient]). In so ruling, this court is compelled by the overarching legislative policy behind the discovery reforms which favor disclosure. The statutory language itself dictates that "[t]here shall be a presumption in favor of [openness and] disclosure when interpreting ... section 245.20[1] of this article." ( CPL § 245.20[7] ). Significantly, the legislature's repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which neither enhanced nor diminished the People's obligations under the discovery statute, further reflected a strong legislative policy promoting transparency of police disciplinary records and eliminated any claim of confidentiality in them. (See Randolph , 69 Misc. 3d at 771-72, 132 N.Y.S.3d 726 ). Defendants’ arguments regarding the repeal of § 50-a are also persuasive. If any citizen can now file a FOIL request for these records and (eventually) obtain them, it makes no sense that, in a criminal proceeding, the People's obligations do not extend to providing records which are potential impeachment material for the police witnesses.6

Disclosure, however, does not presume use. Whether defendants may use any of these records at hearing or trial is a decision left to the sound discretion of the trial court. That court must balance the nature of the misconduct allegation, the police officer's role in the case, and the possibility of prejudice or confusion. ( People v. Rouse , 34 N.Y.3d 269, 280, 117 N.Y.S.3d 634, 140 N.E.3d 957 [2019] ; see also People v. Smith , 27 N.Y.3d 652, 660, 36 N.Y.S.3d 861, 57 N.E.3d 53 [2016] ).7

In support of its position that lists are sufficient, the NYPD argues that the revised discovery statute did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...a different form. Compare People v. LaValle , 3 N.Y.3d 88 [783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341] (2004).See also : People v. Castellanos , 72 Misc. 3d 371, 148 N.Y.S.3d 652 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2021) ; People v. Rosario , 70 Misc. 3d 753, 139 N.Y.S.3d 498 (Co. Ct. Albany Co. 2020)156 N.Y.S.3d 69......
  • People v. Godfred
    • United States
    • New York Criminal Court
    • December 19, 2022
    ...to a particular defense, and prepare arguments as to its use on cross-examination at hearing and trial. ( People v. Castellanos , 72 Misc.3d 371, 148 N.Y.S.3d 652 [Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2021] ). But this court is not prepared to hold that summaries of impeachment material are never permissi......
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...or was previously disclosed in a different form. Compare People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004). See also: People v. Castellanos, 72 Misc.3d 371, 148 N.Y.S.3d652 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2021); People v. Rosario, 70 Misc.3d 753, 139 N.Y.S.3d 498 (Co. Ct. Albany Co. 2020) Similarly, "impeachment e......
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...or was previously disclosed in a different form. Compare People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004). See also: People v. Castellanos, 72 Misc.3d 371, 148 N.Y.S.3d652 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2021); People v. Rosario, 70 Misc.3d 753, 139 N.Y.S.3d 498 (Co. Ct. Albany Co. 2020) Similarly, "impeachment e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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