People v. Kraten, Case No.: 19120319

CourtNew York County Court
Writing for the CourtThomas J. DiSalvo, J.
Citation155 N.Y.S.3d 544 (Table),73 Misc.3d 1229 (A)
Decision Date08 December 2021
Docket NumberCase No.: 19120319
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Michael W. KRATEN, Defendant.

73 Misc.3d 1229 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 544 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Michael W. KRATEN, Defendant.

Case No.: 19120319

Justice Court, New York, Town of Webster, Monroe County.

Decided on December 8, 2021


Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Monroe County (Jacqueline Moyer, of Counsel), for plaintiff.

James L. Riotto II, Esq. (Christopher Mona, of Counsel), for defendant

Thomas J. DiSalvo, J.

The defendant was charged with insufficient turn signal - less than 100’, ( VTL § 1163 [b] ), common law driving while intoxicated, ( VTL § 1192 [3] ) and per se driving while intoxicated ( VTL§ 1192 [2] ) on December 18, 2019 at approximately 2:19 A.M. He was arraigned on January 8, 2020. Defense counsel submitted omnibus motions requesting, among other things, preclusion of statements purportedly made by the defendant and not contained in the People's CPL § 710.30 notice and suppression of all evidence seized or discovered as a result of the arrest pursuant to CPL § 710.20. In response to those motions the court scheduled a probable cause and a Huntley hearing. Those hearings were conducted on April 30, 2021. As a result of those hearings, the motions to suppress evidence seized or discovered as a result of the arrest of the defendant, including the statements of the defendant set out in the People's CPL § 710.30 notice, were denied. The motion to preclude statements not included in the CPL 710.30 notice was also denied because the motion to suppress constituted a waiver of any motion to preclude.1 However the court reserved "... on defendant's motion relative any alleged failure of the People to comply with their discovery obligations under CPL § 245.20, pending receipt from the defendant of a specific written list of any such breaches of said obligations."2 In fact, in addition to filing the said Omnibus Motions, which were dated October 14, 2020, defense counsel filed a motion entitled "Defendant's Objection to People's Certification of Compliance and Statement of Readiness", also dated October 14, 2020. The said objection requested that the court strike the People's statement of readiness, which was filed with the court on or about March 23, 2021, for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of CPL § 245.00, until a proper Certificate of Compliance is filed with the court. At that time the defense indicated that it was not in receipt of a 911 call recording, a vehicle inventory, weekly breath test solution records and a certificate of conviction for [a] witness, which defense counsel indicated was not an exhaustive list, but was an example of outstanding discovery items. As stated above, the court reserved on the said original objection of the defendant at that tine. Subsequently, defense counsel filed a motion entitled "Defendant's Objection to Court's Decision and People's Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness" dated July 7, 2021. The defense argued that the said Statement of Readiness was illusory and that the Court must to strike the People's Statement of Readiness until a proper Certificate of Compliance was filed with the court. The motion listed 13 items of discovery that were not provided to the defense.

The defendant's motion, dated July 7, 2021, entitled "Defendant's Objection to Court's Decision and People's Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness", objecting, presumably to the court's prior decision relative to any discovery issues, and objecting to the People's "Discovery Disclosure Cover Letter Certificate of Compliance and Statement of Readiness" filed with the court on January 21, 2020, a "Discovery Disclosure Cover Letter Certificate of Compliance Statement of Readiness", filed on February 7, 2020, a "Discovery Disclosure Cover Letter Certificate of Compliance Statement of Readiness" dated March 23, 2020 and a "Supplemental Certificate of Compliance CPL 245.50 (1) and CPL 245.60 Certification of Counts CPL 30.30 (5-a) Statement of Readiness" dated April 17, 2020. The defendant's motion set out 13 specific items which he alleged were not received and that were subject to the automatic discovery provisions of CPL § 245.20.

The defendant was arraigned on January 8, 2020 and released on his own recognizance. The law requires that "When the defendant is not in custody during the pendency of the criminal case, the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations within thirty-five calendar days after the defendant's arraignment on an indictment, superior court information, prosecutor's information, information, simplified information, misdemeanor complaint or felony complaint." ( CPL § 245.10[1][a][ii] ) The initial Certificate of Compliance was filed with the court on January 21, 2020. The second Certificate of Compliance was filed 30 days after the arraignment, i.e. February 7, 2020. The remaining Certificates of Compliance were filed on or about 75 days and 92 days, i.e. March 23, 2020 and April 17, 2020, respectively, after the arraignment. Finally attached to the "People's Response" is another "Supplemental Certificate of Compliance CPL 245.50 (1) and CPL 245.60 Certificate of Counts CPL 30.30 (5-a) Statement of Readiness", dated September 9, 2021.

The People's response to the instant motion dated September 9, 2021, specifically addresses each of the items that the defense alleges it did not receive. The response either alleges that the item...

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