John Juzwa, hereinafter defendant, by motion filed February 14, 2023, moves to invalidate the People's certificate of compliance ("COC"), to dismiss this case pursuant CPL § 30.30(1)(b), and to suppress physical evidence. Defendant alleges that the People did not file a proper COC and were not ready for trial within 90 days of his arraignment. Specifically, defendant alleges that the People filed their COC without first disclosing underlying police disciplinary records, and videos under C.P.L. § 245.20 relating to the People's case against him. The People argue that they have acted with due diligence and in good faith before filing their COC, and, although they do not dispute that certain disclosures were either not timely, or not made at all, they maintain that their COC was proper, and consent to a Mapp hearing. After a review of the party submissions, and for the following reasons, the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 is GRANTED.

The defendant is presently charged with violating Penal Law § 220.03, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, stemming from an incident that allegedly occurred on November 14, 2022. Defendant is also separately charged with Burglary in the First Degree, a felony, under Queens County Indictment Number, 73603-22 where, according to the People, the "arrest date, time, and place of occurrence is the same" as the instant case. See People's Aff. Pg. 5. The People offer no further details as to this felony charge.

The complaint in the instant case alleges that on November 14, 2022, between 12:30 AM [*2]and 12:36 AM, the defendant, who had an open I-Card, was observed by Police Officer Maria Landi sitting inside a vehicle. Police Officer Landi then allegedly recovered one (1) pipe containing a quantity of cocaine from inside the defendant's pocket. The Defendant was arrested and arraigned on November 14, 2022, for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree.

The People filed their COC, Superseding Information, and Statement of Readiness ("SOR") on January 30, 2023, seventy-seven (77) days after the Defendant was arraigned. On February 2, 2023, at approximately 3:23 PM, defense counsel emailed the People, indicating the following:

a. A LEOW Letter was provided for PO Kumar (See, [Defendant's] Exhibit "B'') reflecting an IAB investigation of the Officer. The People did not provide any of the underlying reports and notes relating to the IAB investigation of this officer. The LEOW Letter also referenced a separately provided CCRB Document (See, Exhibit "C"). This document which noted that there were two charges and one case in CCRB for the Officer was totally redacted. Counsel was not provided with an unredacted copy of this document nor was he provided with any of the underlying reports and notes relating to the CCRB investigation of this Officer.

b. A LEOW Letter was provided with regards to Detective Maria Landi (See [Defendant's] Exhibit "D"). Said letter referenced three IAB investigations of the Officer. Counsel was not provided with any of the underlying reports and notes of these three IAB Investigations.

c. A LEOW Letter was provided with regards to PO Farley (See, [Defendant's] Exhibit "E). The letter referenced three IAB investigations of the Officer. Counsel was not provided with any of the underling reports and notes of the IAB Investigations of this Officer. The LEOW Letter also referenced a separately provided CCRB Document (See, [Defendant's] Exhibit "F'). Said document references 8 total charges and five total cases. Other than the last case, everything else was redacted. Counsel was not provided with an unredacted copy of the CCRB Document nor was he provided with any of the underlying reports and notes relating to the CCRB investigation of this officer.

In his email of February 2, 2023, defense counsel also indicated that there was a technical issue with the Radio Run provided; it was showing up blank on his end. In addition, he indicated that there were issues with the Body-Worn Camera Videos of Police Officers Farley, Reis, Landi, Lubomski, Peralta, and Belanger.

The People responded to defense counsel on February 2, 2023, at approximately 4:58 PM, and asserted that it was not obligated to provide "impeachment material" that was not related to the subject matter of the case. Consistent with this position, the People now argue, in its opposition papers, that "the language of CPL § 245.20(1)(k) should be interpreted in accordance with New York's Brady progeny, which demands only that a defendant must be made aware of the "essential information" related to misconduct that tends to impeach the People's witnesses, which was satisfied by the People's January 30, 2023, Certificate of Compliance, and that because the requested underlying disciplinary material is not "directly related" to a defendant's prosecution, the prosecutor has no "duty to learn" of it." See People's Aff. Pg. 7.

The People also argue that "C.P.L § 245.20(1)'s qualification requiring the People to automatically disclose all material that relates to the subject matter of the case places an [*3]important limitation on what items the People must provide." See People's Aff. Pg. 6. "And this limitation circumscribes the People's discovery obligations in the context of police personnel files. As a result of this limiting language, impeachment material unrelated to the subject matter of the case is, therefore, outside the universe of automatically discoverable materials" the People contend. The People also argue that certain police personnel files are not in their actual possession and thus not subject to disclosure. See People's Aff. Pg. 7.

With respect to the radio run and video footage, the People state that upon being alerted of a technical issue with the radio run and body-worn camera videos, ADA Tara Hayes reached out to the IT Department for assistance which resent the videos to defense counsel. The People also claimed that the video was served by a different Felony ADA who was handling the burglary charge.

On February 14, 2023, having reached an impasse with respect to discovery, the Defendant filed the instant motion to, among other things, invalidate the People's COC and dismiss the case pursuant to CPL 30.30.

As discussed in People v. Edwards, 74 Misc 3d 433 (New York City, Crim. Ct. 2021), "[i]mpeachment evidence is undoubtedly 'related to the prosecution of the defendant.' Indeed, the statutory scheme repeatedly highlights the importance of acquiring and disclosing impeachment material in the possession of law enforcement:

'The district attorney and the assistant responsible for the case, or, if the matter is not being prosecuted by the district attorney, the prosecuting agency and its assigned representative, shall endeavor to ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police and other investigative personnel and his or her office sufficient to place within his or her possession or control all material and information pertinent to the defendant and the offense or offenses charged, including, but not limited to, any evidence or information discoverable under paragraph (k) of subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article'" (CPL 245.55[1]).

See People v. Edwards, 74 Misc 3d 433, 442 (New York City, Crim. Ct. 2021).

"The provisions of CPL 245.55(1) are not in tension with CPL 245.20(2) ('For purposes of subdivision one of this section, all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution'). Rather, CPL 245.55(1) seeks to ensure that what the Legislature has provided in law — the prosecution's being deemed in possession of evidence in the police files — also becomes true in fact." See Edwards, 74 Misc 3d 433, at 442 quoting People v. Cooper, 71 Misc 3d at 568, 143 N.Y.S.3d 805).

In sum, the underlying records of the substantiated and unsubstantiated charges against the three officers listed by the People as testifying officers in the case against defendant were discoverable pursuant to Article 245.20. This Court agrees with Edwards that "impeachment material arising from incidents unrelated to the defendant's case can be withheld runs counter to the plain language of the statute." And "the Legislature did not leave in serious doubt whether the People are, as a matter of law, in possession of police disciplinary records." See People v. Edwards 74 Misc 3d 433, 440 (New York County Crim. Ct. 2021) (emphasis added).

As the Appellate Division has held, the statute does not allow the People to fulfill this mandate by merely summarizing their police witnesses' disciplinary history. (Matter of Jayson C., 200 AD3d 447, 448-49 [1st Dep't 2021]; see also People v. Figueroa, 78 Misc 3d [*4]1203[A], at *1- 4 [Crim. Ct., Queens County 2023]; People v. Trotman, 77 Misc 3d 1210[A], at *3-*4 [Crim. Ct., Queens County 2022]; People v. Goggins, 76 Misc 3d 898 [Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022]; People v. Martinez, 75 Misc 3d 1212[A], at *3 [Crim. Ct., NY County 2022]; People v. Polanco-Chavarria, 74 Misc 3d 1210[A], at *4 [County Ct., Rockland County 2021]).

"Impeachment evidence is related to the prosecution of a charge; for the same reason that impeachment evidence relates to the 'the subject matter of the case': it directly relates to whether the factfinder should believe the witness's testimony." People v. Edwards, 74 Misc 3d 433 (Crim. Ct., NY County 2021).

For the People to satisfy its discovery obligations, they must first make good faith and diligent efforts to ascertain the existence of items and information subject to discovery. C.P.L. §§ 245.50(1), 245.20(2). That includes "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control." C.P.L. § 245.20(1). The "possession, custody or control of the prosecution" includes all such items and information "in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency." C.P.L. § 245.20(2).

Importantly, and germane to the People's due diligence requirement, Article 245 mandates that each New York state and local law enforcement agency "make available to the prosecution a complete copy of its complete records and files related to the investigation of the case or the prosecution of the defendant for compliance with [Article 245]." See CPL 245.55 [2]. After completing these good faith and diligent efforts, the People must then actually "disclose[ ]" and make available to the defense "all known material and information subject to discovery" in their possession, custody, or control. C.P.L. §§ 245.50(1); 245.20(2).

Since the terms "possession, custody or control of the prosecution" includes all such items and information "in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency," it makes the utmost sense that the prosecution perform diligent efforts to retrieve that which it is charged with possessing (C.P.L. § 245.20[2]), and which the local police, caretakers of the information, must relinquish to the People. See CPL 245.55 [2]. Here, the People's submissions do not satisfy the requirements of the discovery statute with regards to the underlying police disciplinary records of the three officers it sought to call as witnesses in defendant's case.

As a result, the People's nondisclosure of the relevant records requested by the defense in its February email correspondence, violated their C.P.L. § 245.20(1) discovery obligations. Because the People did not timely disclose these materials, their COC and statement of readiness ("SOR") were not proper. They did precisely what they "may not do": they "file[d] a certificate of compliance in which they claim[ed] to have exercised due diligence and turned over all known material and information, while at the same time not actually [having] turn[ed] over all known material and information." People v. Quinlan, 71 Misc 3d at 271; see also People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc 3d at 574 (noting the same). The Court thus finds that the People's COC of January 30, 2023, is invalid, and that the subsequent SOR is likewise invalid.

Defendant was arraigned on November 14, 2022, and the case was adjourned until November 28, 2022, for discovery compliance and conversion. On November 28, 2022, the matter was adjourned again for COC and conversion to January 30, 2023. On January 30, 2023, [*5]the People filed the invalid COC, and are thus charged with 77 days, the time since the defendant's arraignment until January 30, 2023. On January 30, 2023, the case was adjourned until February 1, 2023, and then until February 15, 2023 without the People supplementing its discovery or moving for a protective order with regards to the disciplinary records. On February 14, 2023, the defense filed their motion to dismiss.

The Court finds that the time between January 30, 2023, until February 14, 2023, the date of defendant's filing of his motion, a total of 15 days is also charged to the People. The total charged to the People is thus 92 days. The People have not presented argument of sufficient excludable delay preventing dismissal. See People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 (1980).The People have surpassed their 30.30 speedy trial time limitation for this case, 90 days, and the case is dismissed. See CPL 30.30 (1)(b).

For the reasons stated above, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Because the People filed their COCs without the required automatic disclosures, their COCs and SORs are invalid. The defendant's remaining motions on the instant docket are moot.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.