People v. Valdez

• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 23239
• Docket Number: Docket No. CR-034714-22KN
• Decision Date: 28 July 2023
• Parties: The People of the State of New York v. Osvaldo Valdez, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

2023 NY Slip Op 23239

The People of the State of New York
v.
Osvaldo Valdez, Defendant.

Docket No. CR-034714-22KN

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County

July 28, 2023

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Kings County, Molly Sheehan, Esq., Assistant District Attorney

Brooklyn Defender Services, Kiersten Reider, Esq., of counsel for the Defendant.

Patrick Hayes Torres, J.

On December 1, 2022, Defendant was arraigned and charged with Penal Law §120.14 (1) Menacing in the Second Degree and various other charges. Defendant now challenges the validity of the People's Certificate of Compliance, ("COC") filed on February 2, 2023, as not proper under Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §245.20 (1) because certain materials were not disclosed and made available to the defense, that the prosecution's supplemental certificate of compliance filed on April 10, 2023, supports a ruling that the original COC was invalid under CPL § 245.50 (1-a) and moves for dismissal of the accusatory instrument pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") §§ 245.20 (1), (2) and 30.30 (5) (a).

For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion to invalidate the People's COC is granted but the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §30.30 is denied.

Procedural History

On December 1, 2022, defendant was arraigned and charged with Penal Law §120.14 (1) Menacing in the Second Degree, a class A misdemeanor which had a 90-day speedy trial time. See CPL 30.30 (1) (b). Consequently, the People had until March 1, 2023 to file their Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and Statement of Readiness ("SOR") for trial.

On February 2, 2023, the 63rd day of their speedy trial time calculation, the People served initial discovery materials, and filed a COC and SOR. On March 2, 2023, the Court ordered the defense to file their COC which the defense ignored.

On April 6, 2023, nine weeks after the People's COC was filed, defense counsel notified the People via email that their February 2, 2023 COC was defective and the SOR was illusory asserting that the People failed to disclose mandatory discovery pursuant to CPL §245.20 (1) and (2). On April 10, 2023, four days after receiving the defense email, the People filed their first Supplemental Certificate of Compliance ("SCOC").

On April 18, 2023, the People filed their second SCOC and the defense submitted the instant motion challenging the validity of the People's COC filed on February 2, 2023, and seeking to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §§ 245.20 (1), (2) and 30.30 (5) (a).

On May 19, 2023, the People filed their response opposing the motion. On May 26, 2023, the defense filed a reply.

PEOPLE'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Since the most serious offense charged in the accusatory instrument is a class A misdemeanor, the People were required to be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the action. See CPL §30.30 [1] [b].

CPL § 245 requires the People to file a COC and SOR with the Court prior to announcing readiness under CPL §30.30.See CPL §245.50 [3]). "In order for the People to be ready for trial and stop the speedy trial clock they must, file a certificate of good faith discovery compliance, file a valid statement of readiness and certify the facial sufficiency of the accusatory statement." People v Ramirez-Correa, 71 Misc.3d 570, 572 (Crim. Ct., Queens County 2021).

Criminal Procedure Law §245.50 (1) defines a proper COC and requires the People to certify:

1) That they have exercised "due diligence" and made "reasonable inquiries" to "ascertain the existence of discoverable material

2) That they "made available all known material and information subject to discovery."

Under Article 245, the People's obligations to provide discovery are so broad as to "virtually constitute 'open file' discovery, or at least make 'open file' discovery the far better course of action to assure compliance." (Hon. William C. Donnino, Practice Commentaries, C.P.L. §245.10). People v Lustig, 68 Misc.3d 234, 238-39 (Sup. Ct., Queens County 2020). In fact, the "opening language" of the statute "itself points towards an 'open file' discovery policy." See People v. Markovtsii, 2023 NY Slip Op 23214 (Crim Ct. Kings County 2023); People v. Amir 76 Misc.3d 1209(A) (Crim Ct. Bronx County 2022) . Therefore, "[i]f something is in the prosecutor's file (or that of the police investigating agency) that does not fall within the defined items of disclosure" but is information that "'relate[s] to the subject matter of the case' it will need to be disclosed," unless it is "work-product" or subject to a protective order. Lustig at 239-240; Markovtsii at 2; see also C.P.L. § 245.20[7]. Thus, material in the People's file would most likely be related to defendant's case and need to be disclosed. A prudent prosecutor should resolve a question of doubt by disclosing the material.

A COC is not proper unless the prosecutor has disclosed to the defense all known material subject to discovery after having exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to find out what discovery existed. People v Hutchins, 74 Misc.3d 1234 (A) [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2022]. In a challenge to the validity of a COC the Court must determine whether the People exercised the requisite level of diligence in obtaining the materials, whether their certification was filed in good faith, and was reasonable under the circumstances. People v. Markovtsii, 2023 NY Slip Op 23214 (Crim Ct. Kings County 2023); People v McKinney, 71 Misc.3d 1221 (A) (Crim. Ct. Kings County 2021) ; People v Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563 (Crim. Ct. Kings County 2020)

In the case before this Court, the defendant asserts that the People failed to disclose police misconduct impeachment material regarding NYPD officers listed as potential witnesses. Moreover, the documents disclosed by the People had three disclosure deficiencies: 1) CCRB records were redacted improperly; 2) IAB disclosure letters were undated and missing the heading information; and...